With the primary season in full swing, presidential candidates have more to worry about than attacks from their opponents. Independent political critics have begun to take public stances (pro and con) on the issues, and they are not shy about voicing their opinions.
There are many labels for these organizations: advocacy groups, citizens groups, 527 nonprofits – and sometimes, attack groups. Because they take such strong positions, there is disagreement about whether they are associated closely enough with the candidates to trigger restrictions on their finances.
On Thursday, the Federal Elections Committee was split 50-50 on its vote on the issue, specifically the case of SpeechNow.org, an “independent speech group” that is not connected to any particular candidate and does not give funds to any candidate. SpeechNow’s operations include running ads that support or criticize the candidates’ positions on free speech. The FEC’s task this week was to examine whether it should apply the same rules of campaign finance to SpeechNow as it does to the candidates themselves – limiting individual contributions to $5,000 in a 12-month period.
FEC Chairman David Mason sided with SpeechNow’s position that it operates as a network of individuals rather than a central political entity:
Money given to SpeechNow funds the expression of members’ views; it does not facilitate candidates’ views. Placing limits on the money given to independent organizations serves only to limit speech—an unjustifiable result in a Republic with a profound commitment to the principle that debate should be “uninhibited, robust, and wide open.”
The Center for Competitive Politics reports that the matter is likely to end up in court if the FEC votes to apply the finance restrictions to SpeechNow.
SpeechNow’s situation is an interesting one – if the group really is an association of private citizens, the restrictions would hold back their individual abilities to spend their money on issues they care about, central to the democratic discourse. On the other hand, if the organization is a political group with ties to a candidate or even a party, its contributions could sway an election in ways that would encroach on the candidates’ own campaigns.
How direct do these ties have to be before the government gets called in to play referee?
