In Our View: 527's Should Disclose Donors
The Daily Herald - Provo Utah
The rise of 527 groups, such as MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is the biggest unintended consequence of campaign finance reform.
The McCain-Feingold reform bill restricts political parties from receiving so-called soft-money contributions -- money exceeding individual candidate limits that is aimed at general party business. In the past, that money found its way into campaign activities.
The new law was intended to get the influence of soft money out of the parties -- and it has. However, it also opened the door for non-profit political groups, as defined by Section 527 of the federal tax code, to accept large contributions and spend the money for campaign purposes. While the groups are barred from coordinating activities with individual candidates, they may be in political lock-step. And so the result is virtually the same as if the party had spent the money.
Both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry have come under fire from such groups, though it might be observed that Bush has taken more shots than Kerry. Soft-money groups pushing a Republican agenda have raised $10.8 million compared to Democrats' $176 million, and according to the Associated Press, outside groups trying to deny Bush a second term have spent more than $60 million on advertising, far outstripping thosesympathetic to the president -- though the latter have vowed a late campaign drive to match their rivals.
Both Bush and Kerry have filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission against soft-money ads, and Kerry has also asked stations not to run the Swift Boat Veterans' commercials, which have undermined his credibility. But Bush is also calling for legislative or judicial action to rein in the groups. Both men have accused each other of illegal coordination with the groups.
Whether the 527s are coarsening American political discourse or simply getting out valid messages is an open question. The point of free speech, after all, is that it's free, not that it is directed in some preordained way by the government. If truth can be found in soft-money messages -- and it can, despite their sometimes selective use of facts -- then they should be tolerated, not suppressed.
What they clearly should be, however, is transparent. The 527 groups should be required to disclose the sources of their money.
Muzzling free speech is the wrong approach to solving the soft-money problem. Silencing Americans not only violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression, it violates the Constitution in the very arena where free speech is most needed -- politics.
The founding fathers believed that robust political debate was healthy for the republic, that unfettered speech was the most likely way to get to the truth in politics. Politics is a rough-and-tumble world, to be sure, and there's nothing wrong with that. Limiting free speech just makes things worse.
The best solution is not suppression, but transparency. Right now, 527 groups do not have to disclose the names of donors who don't want to be identified. This prevents the public from judging a group's credibility by shielding its connections. Its independence from a candidate is difficult to determine.
Requiring 527 groups to disclose their donors would not violate the First Amendment. It would not muzzle MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They could still produce any advertisement they wished. Disclosure would give the public a powerful magnifying glass by which to examine and judge a group's character and motives. It's would be a reasonable restriction on any politically oriented group that seeks non-profit tax status.
Campaign disclosure is already a reality with the candidates, and it hasn't chilled their ability to speak. The same will be true with 527 groups. The public needs more information, not silence.
