Here's what Scott McClellan, Bush's press secretary, said today.  I think the quote is unambiguous that Bush wants to shut down all 527 organizations (cue C3PO shouting to R2D2: "No, shut them all down!"):

"The president said he wanted to work together [with McCain] to pursue court action to shut down all the ads and activity by these shadowy 527 groups," McClellan said after Bush spoke to McCain by telephone this morning. 

More can be read in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35376-2004Aug26.html


Michael P. McDonald
Assistant Professor, George Mason University
Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution
703-993-4191
mmcdon@gmu.edu
elections.gmu.edu

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelner, Robert" <rkelner@cov.com>
Date: Thursday, August 26, 2004 11:15 am
Subject: RE: What in the World is Bush Talking About?

Marty gets a whole lot of rhetorical, partisan mileage out of a very
broad extrapolation from what the President actually said.  The
President was asked about the activities of 527s, which, as currently
constituted, are raising and spending large amounts of corporate and
individual money on broadcast advertisements.  In comments Marty 
elided,the President specifically criticized the use of "soft 
money" for these
purposes (soft money that some said would be very difficult for 
outsidegroups to raise, absent the political parties' supposed 
power of
"extortion").  The President said he thought the 527s should stop 
usingsoft money to run ads.  He certainly did not say that he 
thought all
outside groups, using hard money, should be banned, as Marty seems to
suggest.  Of course, the President may well have understood the 
realitythat imposing PAC-type registration requirements and 
contribution limits
on 527s would cause many of them to die out (leaving the 501(c)s 
to rule
the day). 

Rob Kelner

	-----Original Message-----
	From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu] On Behalf Of Marty
Lederman
	Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 10:33 AM
	To: election-law
	Subject: What in the World is Bush Talking About?
	
	
	The President's mantra this week is that all ads run by 527's
ought to be "stopped" -- and that, in fact, 527's themselves ought 
to be
eliminated.  According to the New York Times, when asked whether he
specifically meant that the veteran's group's ad against Mr. Kerry
should be stopped, Bush replied:  "all of them . . . that means 
that ad,
every other ad. Absolutely. I don't think we ought to have 527's. I
can't be more plain about it, and I wish - I hope my opponent 
joins me
in saying - condemning these activities of the 527's. It's - I think
they're bad for the system."
        
	Now, of course, I'm under no illusion that the White House means
to say anything of real substance here -- this is merely a politically
expedient response to the requests that the President repudiate the
Swift Boat ads.  But I do find it fairly remarkable that the President
is expressing a view that is so patently unconstitutional, and 
that, as
far as I know, would not be favored by any campaign finance reform
advocates.  Many of those advocates argue that contributions to 527's
should and can (ordinarily) be capped at $5000 per person 
annually; but
no one is arguing (are they?) that 527s' advertisements should be 
bannedor limited -- a fairly absurd suggestion, in light of the 
fact that the
very definition of a 527 organization is an entity organized and
operated primaruily for the purpose of influencing elections.  And 
whatwould it mean not to "have" 527's?  That they would lose their tax
status? 
        
	As long as "repudiation" is the catchword of the day, I wonder:
Wouldn't it be worthwhile for advocates on both (or all) sides of the
campaign-finance debate to jointly and publicly repudiate the
President's absurd views on 527s and their advertising?  After 
all, it
is not often that everyone in this debate could find common ground on
something so fundamental . . .