As I've explained in previous posts, I am outraged by the Swift Boat ads.
Nevertheless, I'm a bit unlcear about how they might be considered
"shadowy."  The Swift Boat 527 is subject to the same disclosure rules as
Move On and other 527s, and, if I'm not mistaken, we are now extremely
well-informed about who has funded the ads, and even about who has been
providing the group legal advice.  Did you have something else in mind,
RuthAlice?


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RuthAlice Anderson" <rutha@wscpdx.org>
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 12:32 PM
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