dictionary

Opponents question constitutionality of so-called 'stealth PAC' legislation

July 3, 2000
Web posted at: 2:44 p.m. EDT (1844 GMT)

By Raju Chebium
CNN Interactive Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Proponents of the so-called 527 campaign reform legislation that passed the Senate last week invoke a 1976 Supreme Court decision to provide legal justification for the campaign reform measure.

But critics say the 527 legislation, which would force secretive political action committees to disclose their donors, would violate free speech and scare away potential donors from participating in the political process.

The Senate passed the bill 92-6 Thursday despite opposition from Republican members. The House passed the measure 57-42 Wednesday. President Clinton has said he will sign it.

FOLLOW THE MONEY How much money have the candidates raised? Here are their quarterly reports to the Federal Election Commission.     MESSAGE BOARD How effective do you think the '527 campaign reform' legislation will be? Fund-raising questions

LEGAL RESOURCES Latest Legal News Law Library FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topic Bankruptcy Discrimination Divorce Estate Planning Landlord-Tenant Personal Injury Taxes

Proponents point to Buckley v. Valeo, which was over the Federal Election Campaign Act. The act limited annual campaign contributions and required political committees to maintain records about their members. The court ruled that the limits were constitutional but the record-keeping mandate, under some circumstances, was not.

Out of that decision arose the distinction between "issue advocacy" and "express advocacy." Groups that push messages about an issue are entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulation compared to groups that make campaign commercials, experts say.

"These groups often try to hide behind the claim that they are engaging in issue ads when oftentimes they are engaged in ... supporting or opposing specific campaigns," said John Bonifaz, executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute in Boston. "The Supreme Court has made it quite clear that if it is the latter kind of advertising, the public has a right to know who is behind that advertisement and what kind of money made it possible."

Campaign reform proponents argue that clandestine political groups who are registered under Section 527 of the tax code funnel millions of dollars of unregulated "soft money" to political candidates.

For instance, recent Democratic and Republican national committee ads feature Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush respectively. Bonifaz said the ads could be construed as campaign messages instead of purely designed to generate support for party activities.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, a leading critic of campaign finance reform, argued that the other side is bent on tearing down "constitutionally protected political speech and association."

"It is a fact of life that it costs money to amplify one's voice in our nation of 270 million people," he wrote in an op-ed piece that appeared in Wednesday's Washington Post. "It stands to reason that government restrictions on your ability to pay to protect your speech impinge on your freedom of speech."

He noted that Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in the Buckley opinion that all justices agreed that "money is essential for effective communication in a political campaign."

McConnell spokeswoman Tamara Sumerville said, "Should you have to register with the government to criticize a public official? That's what it comes down to in a lot of cases."

Bonifaz said the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to subvert the political process.

"In order to have public confidence in the political process, we need to have full sunlight on those who have a corrupting influence," he said. "The First Amendment guarantees open and robust debate. You cannot have open and robust debate when you have big money holders influence elections."

Opponents of the bill also invoke the 1958 Supreme Court decision in NAACP v. Alabama which said publicizing the members of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People could endanger the members' lives in the racially charged Deep South.

Acknowledging that identification of 527 members would likely not be as threatening a prospect as publicizing NAACP member lists, Summerville said, "Even now people who are attached to unpopular causes, they may choose not to do it if they have to disclose."

Bonifaz charged that the bill's critics are seeking "to turn back the clock before Buckley," when clandestine contributions led to the toppling of President Nixon.

Senators move to open up 'stealth PACS' with lopsided vote
June 29, 2000
House rejects campaign finance overhaul measure
June 9, 2000

See related sites about LAW

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.