1. Late forming conservative 527s will raise most of their money such that
finance disclosures will not occur until after the election; compare that
with the left, which disclosed early enough that there has been ample time
to villify Soros et al.
[my favorite comment on Soros: "`he was a Jew who figured out a way to
survive the Holocaust,'" said Tony Blankley, TV talking head, editor of the
editorial page of the Washington Times, and a former spokesperson for Newt
Gingrich]
Hence the difficulty in actually ascertaining SBVT financing.
2. The asymmetry between discussion of genuinely shadowy 501(c)(4)s de facto
focused on election material through direct mail and phone bnanking (i.e.,
what seems to be the primary tact of pro-Bush $$$) and the unshadowy major
pro-Kerry 527s.
3. Pointing out the asymmetry in truth is not irrelevant to understanding
the politics behind Bush's statements, statements which we all agree will
help shape the future evolution of campaign finance law. And the press'
credulity re comparing liars and truthtellers will also impact on public
perceptions of 527s.
My basic point -- not only do too few law professors engage in an effort to
understand the politics that shapes law, their reluctance to be seen as
partisan compells them to misguided analysis. I think the fact (well, it's
an opinion, I guess, and this would require me to write a law review article
to establish, but... I'm pretty confident in this opinion) that the vast
bulk of academic response to Bush v. Gore was dreadfully besides the point
illustrates this broader problem.
And nowwhere does taking the politics out of law make less sense than in the
realm of campaign fiannce.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Lederman [mailto:marty.lederman@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 1:51 PM
To: Jeff Hauser; election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Bush on 527s
Hey, I very much agree that there is a severe "asymmetry" in the ads when it
comes to things such as content, truthfulness, decorum and outrageousness.
Those truly are, however, matters for another site, see, e.g.,
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_08_22.php#003355.
But where's the asymmetry w/r/t campaign-fiannce issues, or disclosure, or
anything else germane to this list?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hauser" <jeff_hauser95@post.harvard.edu>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 1:33 PM
Subject: RE: FW: Bush on 527s
RuthAlice's point is another reason why "even" partisan-inspired comments
are useful. I imagine that a relatively high percentage of the pundits
quoted by the media on campaign finance law issues reside on this site.
These pundits ought to be focused on remediating the most glaring common
errors in press coverage; the false symmetry between SBVT and the
left-of-center 527s seems to be one such error. Another is the focus on
527s to the exclusion of 501(c)(4)s.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
[mailto:owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu]On Behalf Of RuthAlice
Anderson
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:32 PM
To: election-law@majordomo.lls.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Bush on 527s
My frustration is this entire media debate about the "shadowy groups"
including moveon.org in the same category as the Swift Boat Vets. Is
there any PAC more transparent than moveon? Folks online get to vote
on the ads, the fundraising is as out there in public as it gets.
There's nothing shadowy about it. Moreover, it has a history; it didn't
spring up overnight. In the spectrum of transparent to shadowy,
moveon.org and swift boat vets are at opposite ends, yet they are
conflated by the press, the president's press spokeman and the
president. If ethical and transparent political groups are smeared by
being classified with the Swift Boat vets, what is the political
advantage of being honest?
It's one thing for the President and the campaign to smear moveon, I
expect nothing less from them. But when the media can't be bothered to
distinguish between them, it's infuriating.
RuthAlice Anderson