by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
On Friday, a small victory was had against the ever encroaching corporatism threatening our democracy. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D – MD) brought suit against the FEC last year. In his suit, Van Hollen charges that in 2007 the FEC created a loophole allowing undisclosed donors to contribute money for “electioneering communications” to organizations like Karl Rove’s 501(c)(4) advocacy group Crossroads GPS and to 501(c)(6) business associations like the Chamber of Commerce for the purposes of by willfully misinterpreting disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). “Electioneering communications” are broadcast ads that refer to a federal candidate in the period 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. These ads may call for either the election or defeat of a specific candidates.
In 2007, the FEC added a regulation that complicated the situation. The rule in question – C.F.R. Title 11 § 104.20 (c)(9) – (found at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)) – says “If the disbursements were made by a corporation or labor organization pursuant to 11 CFR 114.15, the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the corporation or labor organization, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year, which was made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” Clearly the FEC is saying that disclosure is only required if a donation is explicitly made “for the purpose of electioneering communication.” Being that few, if any, donors to these groups ever earmark their donation for a specific election expense there has been little or no disclosure of the donors to these groups.
There is a problem with that regulation though.
Continue reading “A Small Victory Against Corporatism” →
We have followed the growing trend toward criminalization of speech in the West. This morning we have another such story out of Germany over a cover on the Swiss magazine Die Weltwoche, on the increasing numbers of Roma in Switzerland. The cover shows a Roma boy pointing a gun and critics have called for the magazine to be banned for racial incitement. There is ample reason to debate the merits of the cover story, entitled “The Roma are coming.” However, once again, there is a move to ban unpopular speech rather than allow free speech to be its own disinfectant.
