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