Finally, 527s

The Federal Election Commission moves slowly on Swift Boaters and other campaign groups.

THE INDEPENDENT political groups known as 527s were major players in the 2004 presidential election, but they didn't have to play by the same rules as other political organizations -- or so they contended. While ordinary political committees were limited to taking $5,000 contributions from individuals, the 527s, named for the provision of the tax code under which they're organized, accepted unlimited contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy donors -- a freedom that allowed them to wield significant influence in the campaign.

Last week, with the election long over, the Federal Election Commission found that three of these 527 groups -- the Democratic-leaning MoveOn.org Voter Fund and League of Conservation Voters 527 and the Republican-leaning Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth -- violated federal election law by failing to register with the FEC and abide by the same contribution limits as other political groups. In a settlement, the groups agreed to pay a total of $630,000 in fines -- a sliver of the combined $29 million they raised in excess or prohibited funds.

This is not a good way to run a campaign finance system. If the 527s were required to abide by the stricter contribution rules, the FEC should have made that clear at the time. Because it did not, the public was subjected to a campaign in which million-dollar donations were used to influence the outcome. The Swift Boaters alone (fine $299,500) spent more than $13 million that shouldn't, it turns out, have been allowed into the political system. Ask Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) about the effect that money had.

The FEC will face criticism not only about the lateness of its action but about the size of the penalties it imposed. Yet the law was so murky that the FEC conceded in the Swiftboat settlement that it "has never alleged that the Swift Vets acted in knowing defiance of the law." Consequently, a lower fine is appropriate -- but much higher penalties would be warranted for future violators.

Of more concern, though, is whether, looking toward 2008 and beyond, the FEC has set out clear enough rules for future Swift Boaters and MoveOn'ers to know when they need to register with the FEC and live by its limits. Under the FEC's analysis, a 527 group interested in affecting a federal election isn't automatically subject to FEC rules. Instead, the commission found that the groups here had to register because they engaged in political communications that were "unmistakable, unambiguous and suggestive of only one meaning" -- to advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate -- and because their "major purpose" was involvement in federal campaign activity.

Clearer guidance in the form of specific regulations that could be tested in federal court would be preferable. So, too, would be legislation making clear that all 527s, except those engaged exclusively in state or local activity, need to live by federal election rules.