Tweet
Soon after Richard A. Clarke appeared on CBS's ``60 Minutes'' to say the Bush administration had fumbled its war on terror, the e-mail boxes at MoveOn began to fill up with forwarded transcripts of the show.
Members of the online activist organization thought the damning comments from a former counterterrorism chief who served under four presidents would make a good anti-Bush TV ad. This week it will appear on CNN, backed with $300,000 the group raised in a matter of hours.
The ability to mount such a lightning-fast response has made MoveOn, started by a Berkeley couple in 1998 to defend then-President Clinton during impeachment, a formidable player in this year's presidential contest. MoveOn's fundraising tactics have also made it a target for Republicans who say a MoveOn entity is using the tax code to skirt campaign-finance law and take huge, unregulated donations that were banned by the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law.
Wes Boyd, who co-founded the group with his wife, Joan Blades, compares his staff of nine, who work from their homes in Berkeley, Washington and New York, to a non-partisan David confronting a Republican Goliath. Boyd insists that MoveOn, despite a barrage of anti-Bush commercials, is seeking the political middle ground and steering clear of the tit-for-tat of negative campaigning.
``We can't just keep fighting this silly war,'' Boyd said during an interview at his home in North Berkeley. ``We try to rise above the partisanship.'' Before becoming activists, the couple founded Berkeley Systems, which became famous for its flying-toasters screen saver.
GOP objections
Republicans scoff at Boyd's claim that his group is not partisan. They see MoveOn's 2.1 million members, who have donated $15 million in the last year, as thinly-disguised minions of the presumed democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry.
``They are John Kerry's secret slush fund,'' said Yier Shi, Western press secretary for the Republican National Committee. ``They have spent over $3.5 million attacking the president and they have indicated that they are coordinating with the campaign.''
MoveOn denies it is in cahoots with the Kerry campaign, which would be a violation of federal election law. But it is part of a cluster of Democrat-affiliated groups, including the Media Fund, that are trying to help Kerry beat back President Bush's enormous fundraising advantage.
Republicans say the groups amount to a shadow party that has formed for the sole purpose of evading campaign-finance restrictions, a charge that has been taken up by some neutral campaign-finance watchdogs as well. MoveOn and the Media Fund have been advertising in the same 17 swing states as the Kerry campaign.
MoveOn is different from the other groups in that it gets most of its money through small donations. MoveOn is actually three separate entities that share the same e-mail membership.
One, MoveOn.org, is a non-profit group like the Sierra Club. Another is MoveOn PAC, a political-action committee that can take only regulated or ``hard money'' but can be more directly partisan.
The third entity is the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a so-called 527, named for the section of the tax code that allows groups to take large, unregulated donations -- or ``soft money'' -- to influence federal elections as long they act independently of the candidates. The Democratic 527s were formed to take large contributions from unions and individuals that can no longer go to the party.
The Voter Fund has accepted $5 million from two super-wealthy Democratic donors, financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis.
Even non-partisan critics say the Democratic groups, including MoveOn's Voter Fund, should not be using unrestricted donations to influence federal elections. Republicans are trying to stop it.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who sponsored last year's tough campaign-finance reform law, says the practice is illegal. The Federal Election Commission has been asked to decide the issue, but a ruling is not expected until May or June, by which time Democrats will have spent most of their money.
Others say the dispute is politically motivated.
The Bush campaign has also filed a complaint with the FEC against the Media Fund, which is raising money for anti-Bush ads and is run by Harold Ickes, Clinton's former deputy White House Counsel.
Free speech
Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that if the groups are acting independently of candidates, restricting their fundraising might be a violation of free speech.
``Under existing Supreme Court precedent, I think there is a very good argument that if these groups are independent, they cannot be regulated,'' he said.
Hasen said it was hypocritical of Republicans to complain, given their long opposition to campaign-finance reform. The RNC, for example, tried to overturn the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law, arguing that its soft-money restrictions were unconstitutional.
MoveOn's lawyer, Joe Sandler, said the Republican demands would ultimately end up muzzling hundreds of non-profit groups, including the Sierra Club.
Boyd said the Republicans are trying to intimidate his group by accusing it of violating campaign-finance law. ``Outrageous charges seem to be part of the game,'' he said.
MoveOn's new ad featuring Clarke will avoid the fundraising controversy because it will be funded by MoveOn's political-action committee, which uses only hard money subject to donation limits. Earlier ads were paid for through its 527, the MoveOn Voter Fund.
Bill Zimmerman, who produces MoveOn's ads, said the new ad had to be paid for by the political-action committee, because the ad refers to one of Bush's own campaign spots. He said the 527 would continue to run more ads throughout the campaign.
``It falls within the area of direct electioneering,'' Zimmerman wrote in an e-mail. ``That is supposed to be the bright line separating 527s from PACs, and we are trying to conform to it.''
Members of the online activist organization thought the damning comments from a former counterterrorism chief who served under four presidents would make a good anti-Bush TV ad. This week it will appear on CNN, backed with $300,000 the group raised in a matter of hours.
The ability to mount such a lightning-fast response has made MoveOn, started by a Berkeley couple in 1998 to defend then-President Clinton during impeachment, a formidable player in this year's presidential contest. MoveOn's fundraising tactics have also made it a target for Republicans who say a MoveOn entity is using the tax code to skirt campaign-finance law and take huge, unregulated donations that were banned by the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law.
Wes Boyd, who co-founded the group with his wife, Joan Blades, compares his staff of nine, who work from their homes in Berkeley, Washington and New York, to a non-partisan David confronting a Republican Goliath. Boyd insists that MoveOn, despite a barrage of anti-Bush commercials, is seeking the political middle ground and steering clear of the tit-for-tat of negative campaigning.
``We can't just keep fighting this silly war,'' Boyd said during an interview at his home in North Berkeley. ``We try to rise above the partisanship.'' Before becoming activists, the couple founded Berkeley Systems, which became famous for its flying-toasters screen saver.
GOP objections
Republicans scoff at Boyd's claim that his group is not partisan. They see MoveOn's 2.1 million members, who have donated $15 million in the last year, as thinly-disguised minions of the presumed democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry.
``They are John Kerry's secret slush fund,'' said Yier Shi, Western press secretary for the Republican National Committee. ``They have spent over $3.5 million attacking the president and they have indicated that they are coordinating with the campaign.''
MoveOn denies it is in cahoots with the Kerry campaign, which would be a violation of federal election law. But it is part of a cluster of Democrat-affiliated groups, including the Media Fund, that are trying to help Kerry beat back President Bush's enormous fundraising advantage.
Republicans say the groups amount to a shadow party that has formed for the sole purpose of evading campaign-finance restrictions, a charge that has been taken up by some neutral campaign-finance watchdogs as well. MoveOn and the Media Fund have been advertising in the same 17 swing states as the Kerry campaign.
MoveOn is different from the other groups in that it gets most of its money through small donations. MoveOn is actually three separate entities that share the same e-mail membership.
One, MoveOn.org, is a non-profit group like the Sierra Club. Another is MoveOn PAC, a political-action committee that can take only regulated or ``hard money'' but can be more directly partisan.
The third entity is the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a so-called 527, named for the section of the tax code that allows groups to take large, unregulated donations -- or ``soft money'' -- to influence federal elections as long they act independently of the candidates. The Democratic 527s were formed to take large contributions from unions and individuals that can no longer go to the party.
The Voter Fund has accepted $5 million from two super-wealthy Democratic donors, financier George Soros and insurance magnate Peter Lewis.
Even non-partisan critics say the Democratic groups, including MoveOn's Voter Fund, should not be using unrestricted donations to influence federal elections. Republicans are trying to stop it.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who sponsored last year's tough campaign-finance reform law, says the practice is illegal. The Federal Election Commission has been asked to decide the issue, but a ruling is not expected until May or June, by which time Democrats will have spent most of their money.
Others say the dispute is politically motivated.
The Bush campaign has also filed a complaint with the FEC against the Media Fund, which is raising money for anti-Bush ads and is run by Harold Ickes, Clinton's former deputy White House Counsel.
Free speech
Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that if the groups are acting independently of candidates, restricting their fundraising might be a violation of free speech.
``Under existing Supreme Court precedent, I think there is a very good argument that if these groups are independent, they cannot be regulated,'' he said.
Hasen said it was hypocritical of Republicans to complain, given their long opposition to campaign-finance reform. The RNC, for example, tried to overturn the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform law, arguing that its soft-money restrictions were unconstitutional.
MoveOn's lawyer, Joe Sandler, said the Republican demands would ultimately end up muzzling hundreds of non-profit groups, including the Sierra Club.
Boyd said the Republicans are trying to intimidate his group by accusing it of violating campaign-finance law. ``Outrageous charges seem to be part of the game,'' he said.
MoveOn's new ad featuring Clarke will avoid the fundraising controversy because it will be funded by MoveOn's political-action committee, which uses only hard money subject to donation limits. Earlier ads were paid for through its 527, the MoveOn Voter Fund.
Bill Zimmerman, who produces MoveOn's ads, said the new ad had to be paid for by the political-action committee, because the ad refers to one of Bush's own campaign spots. He said the 527 would continue to run more ads throughout the campaign.
``It falls within the area of direct electioneering,'' Zimmerman wrote in an e-mail. ``That is supposed to be the bright line separating 527s from PACs, and we are trying to conform to it.''
Comment