The battle to shape the regulations governing the recently passed overhaul of campaign finance is pitting two groups of traditional liberal allies -- advocates of restrictions on political fundraising on one side and advocates of civil rights and organized labor on the other -- against each other.
At hearings held by the Federal Election Commission yesterday, a morning panel of advocates from such organizations as Common Cause, Democracy 21 and FEC Watch urged the commission to approve tough, encompassing regulations to close every possible loophole, and to reject appeals, especially those from the national political parties, for less restrictive rules.
_____Campaign Finance_____
•
On Nov. 2, GOP Got More Bang For Its Billion, Analysis Shows (The Washington Post, Dec 30, 2004)
•
Fundraising Records Broken by Both Major Political Parties (The Washington Post, Dec 3, 2004)
•
Frist Political Fund Can't Cover Bank Loan (The Washington Post, Dec 2, 2004)
•
U.S. Probes Clinton Senate Campaign (The Washington Post, Oct 6, 2004)
•
Judge Strikes Down 15 FEC Rules on Campaign Finance (The Washington Post, Sep 21, 2004)
•
Special Report
|
| |
|
"The FEC must resist these calls to eviscerate the new law right out of the box and avoid becoming an instrument by which the law is narrowed, carved up and rendered ineffective," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
In afternoon testimony, representatives of the NAACP National Voter Fund, the AFL-CIO and the Latino Coalition countered that excessively broad regulation will have a "chilling effect" on legitimate nonpartisan voter registration and mobilization, and will choke off public participation in the political process.
If "overly broad," the proposed rules could "unduly hamper" the fundraising activities of voter registration groups and "thus impede many, if not all, of the valuable, nonpartisan get-out-the-vote activities," said Ki P. Hong of the NAACP National Voter Fund.
Voter registration and mobilization groups on both the left and the right, from the NAACP to the National Rifle Association, are bitterly opposed to regulations that have the potential to limit their activities and funding sources.
Groups that fought for the new campaign finance law and sponsors of the legislation such as Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) are determined to see to it that the FEC regulations prevent conservative and liberal "nonpartisan" groups from becoming conduits for party-directed "soft money" contributions.
The major thrust of the new law is to prohibit the national parties and federal candidates from using unlimited, unregulated "soft money," which initially was supposed to be used for party-building activities but that eventually was used in ways that seemed to target candidates.
Many of the critiques of tough regulation are shared by the national committees of the Democratic and Republican parties, which have filed comments with the FEC and are scheduled to testify today. Some of the strongest arguments have come from the Republican national and congressional committees.
The Republican National Committee contended, for example, that "all activity that does not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified federal candidate is beyond the commission's authority to regulate."
The National Republican Congressional Committee warned the FEC that efforts to regulate what members of Congress say at state and local party fundraising gatherings could "create a vague and ever-shifting landscape based not on clear rules, but case-by-case situations. There are already enough pitfalls for the unwary; already enough deterrents to first-time candidates becoming involved in the system."
Both major national political parties have, in recent years, channeled millions of dollars to such groups as Emily's List, a group advocating the election of women who support abortion rights, and Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes tax increases. The concern among ideological groups that have received party money in the past is that, under broad regulatory interpretations, they could "be subject to the same prohibitions and restrictions on soft money" as the national party committees.
"If the FEC fails to clarify areas of uncertainty in the regulations now, it will create confusion and overcautious behavior," Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of environmental, civil rights, women's and consumer groups, wrote to the agency.
