| Subject: BCRA news and commentary |
| From: Rick Hasen |
| Date: 12/14/2003, 12:52 PM |
| To: election-law |
The National Law Journal features Shifting Ground: A Campaign Ruling Gives Congress Great Deference. The Washington Post offers Democratic "Shadow" Groups Face Scrutiny. The New York Times offers A Law Survives. Now Let's Subvert It. The Christian Science Monitor offers Finance Decision Could Put Chill on First Amendment. Rannesh Ponnuru at National Review Online writes Reviewing the Judges: What Conservatives Should Learn from the Campaign Finance Decision.
The Sarasota Herald Tribune offers Ruling
Could Lead to State Reforms. Steve Chapman of the Chicago
Tribune writes How
Mentioning a Candidate Can Land You in Jail.
Back here I asked the question whether an unincorporated 527 association can accept unlimited contributions for electioneering communications. It appeared that the answer was yes, so long as the 527 was not incorporated, took no corporate or union funds, and did not engage in express advocacy.
It turns out that there is an argument to limit 527
contributions---that such organizations are "major purpose"
organizations that can be regulated as political committees under the
FECA, the same way that political parties are regulated. For an
argument in favor of this interpretation, see Donald Tobin, Election
Speech and Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, 37 Ga. Law Review
611, 688-691 (2003). I have not yet looked into this issue myself and
would be interested in hearing counter-arguments.
-- Rick Hasen Professor of Law and William M. Rains Fellow Loyola Law School 919 South Albany Street Los Angeles, CA 90015-1211 (213)736-1466 (213)380-3769 - fax rick.hasen@lls.edu http://www.lls.edu/academics/faculty/hasen.html http://electionlawblog.org