Marty,

What a wonderfully sensible observation and suggestion.  Count me in.

Tom

"Marty Lederman" <marty.lederman@comcast.net> 08/26/04 10:33AM >>>

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 banned
or 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 what
would 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 . . .