Outside Groups
News & Commentary | Archive "Outside Groups" is a term for organizations other than party committees, registered federal political committees, or candidate committees. BCRA seeks to limit the ability of these groups to introduce soft money into the federal electoral process. It prohibits corporations and unions from naming a federal candidate in ads run in the candidate's state or district within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. An additional and complex provision is designed to prevent outside groups from "coordinating" with candidates their communications to the public, such as mail, phone or broadcast communications. The Democratic National Committee on Citizens UnitedIt's brief can be found here. (8/3/09) Read More "Express Advocacy" Before the IRSIn the Catholic Answers complaint, challenging the IRS' prohibition on 501(c)(3) "political intervention", counsel Jim Bopp would like to graft the express advocacy standard onto IRS rules. No express advocacy, then no political intervention; and he is particularly bent on doing away with the "I know it when I see it approach". The case involved an email, posted to the Catholic Answers web site, which argued for the denial of communion to John Kerry as a penalty for his pro-choice position. That there was a relationship of this comment to the Kerry candidacy is beyond cavil. Absent, however, was the raw express advocacy that Bopp believes must be incorporated into IRS guidelines to keep them within constitutional limits.
(4/8/09) Read More Bopp, Opening Another Front before the IRS on Political ActionJim Bopp, through his James Madison Center, filed these two complaints last Friday: Catholic Answers and Karl Keating vs. United States of America and Christian Coalition of Florida vs. United States of America. Each challenges the IRS restrictions on political activity by 501(c) tax-exempts. More on the applicable constitutional and legal issues will follow here, shortly.
(4/6/09) Read More Citizens United and the Press: Old and NewCitizens United, before the Supreme Court for argument this morning, nicely shows how experience with McCain-Feingold’s complexities has tested press opinion. Not all press: not, of course, the New York Times. The Times holds out, firm and unyielding, against all ambiguities. It represents the old media school of reform, and it barely seems to notice that there has been a drop-off in attendance
(3/24/09) Read More A Way Out for the Court in Citizens United?Rick Hasen writes now about option open to the Supreme Court in Citizens United if it wishes to avoid the larger constitutional issues. Citizens United notes in its brief that the Commission's electioneering communications regulation could be read to exclude from its reach video-on-demand viewing of political films like Hillary: the Movie. In their brief, Senators McCain and Feingold offer this same alternative.
(3/2/09) Read More Also...The Government v. Citizens United in the Supreme Court 2/25/09 Citizens United: The Olson Brief 1/16/09 527s, Then (2004) and Now: The FEC, Then and Now 12/29/08 The FEC Decides, Yea Or Nay—Without Explanation 11/28/08 The RNC Attack on McCain-Feingold—in Association with Mr. Bopp 11/17/08 James Bopp and the Legal Significance of His "Truth" in Issue Advertising 10/7/08 The Times and the Issue of "527" Enforcement in 2008 9/24/08 More in the Weekly Standard on AIP 9/8/08 Answering Hasen and CCP, on ALP 9/5/08 Allison Hayward Tries to Explain 9/3/08 |