Dear List manager kan you please subscribe mr khan at [log in to unmask] Thank you For Freedom Saiks >From: Ylva Hernlund <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list ><[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal (fwd) >Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:56:22 -0800 > >Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:05:15 -0800 >From: "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org" <[log in to unmask]> >To: Ylva Hernlund <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal > >Dear MoveOn member, > >Are you involved in a local or national non-profit or public interest >organization? As a leader or board director or member? Please read this >message carefully, because your organization could be facing a serious >threat. > >The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election >Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare >to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or >members of Congress. Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for public >comment -- proposed rules that would do just that. Any kind of non-profit >-- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service, >charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and >small -- could be affected by these rules. > >Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the >values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy. >Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush >administration policy. > >We've attached materials below to help you make a public comment to the FEC >before the comment period ends on APRIL 9th. Your comment could be very >important, because normally the FEC doesn't get much public feedback. > >Public comments to the FEC are encouraged by email at > > [log in to unmask] > >Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General >Counsel, and must include the full name, electronic mail address, and >postal service address of the commenter. > >More details can be found at: > > http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html > >We'd love to see a copy of your public comment. Please email us a copy at >[log in to unmask] > >By the way, the FEC’s proposed rules do not affect the donations you may >have made in the past or may make now to MoveOn.org or to the MoveOn.org >Voter Fund. They are aimed at activist non-profit groups, not donors. > >Whether or not you're with a non-profit, we also suggest you ask your >representatives to write a letter to the FEC opposing the rule change. > >Some key points: > >- Campaign finance reform was not meant to gag public interest >organizations. >- Political operatives are trying to silence opposition to Bush policy. >- The Federal Election Commission has no legal right to treat non-profit >interest groups as political committees. Congress and the courts have >specifically considered and rejected such regulation. > >You can reach your representatives at: > > Senator Patty Murray > Phone: 202-224-2621 > > Senator Maria Cantwell > Phone: 202-224-3441 > > Congressman Jim McDermott > Phone: 202-225-3106 > >Please let us know you're calling, at: > >http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=2540-1139123-AOO836sRDgZD7TqZtAQvwQ > >In a non-election year, this kind of administrative overreach would never >find support. It goes far beyond any existing law or precedent. It is a >serious threat to the fundamental checks and balances in our system. But >because of an unholy alliance between a few campaign reform groups and GOP >partisans, this rule change could actually happen if we don't act now. > >I've attached more details below, prepared by our attorneys and by the FEC >Working Group -- a group of more than 500 respected non-profit >organizations. > >If you run a non-profit, don't assume this change doesn't apply to you. >First check out the EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS >section below. It's outrageous. > >Thanks for all you do, > >-Wes Boyd > MoveOn.org > March 30, 2004 > >________________ > > >EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS > >Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations that advocate for cancer >research, gun and abortion restrictions or rights, fiscal discipline, tax >reform, poverty issues, immigration reform, the environment, or civil >rights or liberties - all these organizations could be transformed into >political committees if they criticize or commend members of Congress or >the President based on their official actions or policy positions. > >Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds >in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations >would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public >policies that affect millions of Americans. > >If the proposed rules were adopted, the following organizations would be >treated as federal political committees and therefore could not receive >grants from any corporation, even an incorporated nonprofit foundation, >from any union, or from any individual in excess of $5,000 per year: > >- A 501(c)(4) gun rights organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any >time during this election year criticizing any legislator, who also happens >to be a federal candidate, for his or her position on gun control measures. > >- A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)] that spends more than >$50,000 to research and publish a report criticizing several members of the >House of Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to the Bahamas as >guests of the hotel industry. > >- A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization to provide information >to the public regarding federal candidates' voting records on budget >issues. > >- A civil rights organization [§501(c)(3) or §501(c)(4)] that spends more >than $50,000 to conduct non-partisan voter registration activities in >Hispanic and African-American communities after July 5, 2004. > >- An organization devoted to the environment that spends more than $50,000 >on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic and identifying >specific Members of Congress as supporters of the legislation, if those >Members are running for re-election. > >- A civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to send >letters to all registered voters in the community urging them to vote on >November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic duty." > >Other potential ramifications include the following situations: > >- A religious organization that publishes an election-year legislative >report card covering all members of Congress on a broad range of issues >would be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any individual donor if the >report indicated whether specific votes were good or bad. > >- A 501(c)(3) organization that primarily encourages voter registration and >voting among young people will be required to re-create itself as a federal >PAC. > >- A 501(c)(4) pro-life group that accepts contributions from local >businesses would break the law by using its general funds to pay for any >communications critical of an incumbent Senator's position on abortion >rights after the Senator had officially declared himself for reelection >more than a year before the next election. > >- A 501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a political >committee can no longer hold its annual fundraiser at a corporate-donated >facility, and it must refuse donations or grants from donors that have >already given $5,000 for that year. > >BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES > >Under federal campaign finance laws, federal "political committees" must >register and file reports with the FEC and can accept contributions only >from individual persons (and other federal committees), and only up to >$5,000 per year from any one donor ("hard money"). The FEC is now >proposing to redefine "political committee" to include any group that: > >1. Spends more than $1,000 this year on nonpartisan voter registration or >get out the vote activity or on any ad, mailing or phone bank that >"promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate; and > >2. Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election of a federal candidate as >shown by: > (a) Saying anything in its press releases, materials, website, etc. >that might lead regulators to conclude that the group’s "major purpose" is >to influence the election of any federal candidate; or > (b) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years >for any nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote program, or on >any public communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any >federal candidate. > >What’s more, any group that gets turned into a federal "political >committee" under these new rules has to shut down all its communications >critical of President Bush (or any other federal candidate) until it sets >up "federal" and "non-federal" accounts; and raises enough hard money >contributions to "repay" the federal account for the amounts spent on all >those communications since the beginning of 2003. > >These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups: 501(c)(3) >charitable organizations, 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, labor unions, >trade associations and non-federal political committees and organizations >(so-called "527" groups, as well as state PACs, local political clubs, >etc.). > >The new rules, including those that apply to voter engagement, cover all >types of communications -- not just broadcast TV or radio ads -- but >messages in any form, such as print ads, mailings, phone banks, email >alerts like this one, websites, leaflets, speeches, posters, tabling, even >knocking on doors. > >The FEC will hold a public hearing on April 14 & 15. Written comments are >due by April 5 if the group wants to testify at that hearing; otherwise, by >April 9. The FEC plans to make its final decision on these proposed rules >by mid-May and they could go into effect as early as July, right in the >middle of the election year, potentially retroactive to January 2003. > >It’s clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of groups, >of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any kind about >the Bush Administration, its record and its policies. > >SOME TALKING POINTS > >- The FEC should not change the rules for nonprofit advocacy in the middle >of an election year, especially in ways that Congress already considered >and rejected. Implementing these changes now would go far beyond what >Congress decided and the Supreme Court upheld. > >- These rules would shut down the legitimate activities of nonprofit >organizations of all kinds that the FEC has no authority at all to >regulate. > >- Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or the Supreme Court’s >decision upholding it provides any basis for these rules. That law is only >about banning federal candidates from using unregulated contributions >("soft money"), and banning political parties from doing so, because of >their close relationship to those candidates. It’s clear that, with one >exception relating to running broadcast ads close to an election, the new >law wasn’t supposed to change what independent nonprofit interest groups >can do, including political organizations (527’s) that have never before >been subject to regulation by the FEC. > >- The FEC can’t fix the problems with these proposed rules just by imposing >new burdens on section 527 groups. They do important issue education and >advocacy as well as voter mobilization. And Congress clearly decided to >require those groups to fully and publicly disclose their finances, through >the IRS and state agencies, not to restrict their independent activities >and speech. The FEC has no authority to go further. > >- In the McConnell opinion upholding McCain-Feingold, the U.S. Supreme >Court clearly stated that the law's limits on unregulated corporate, union >and large individual contributions apply to political parties and not >interest groups. Congress specifically considered regulating 527 >organization three times in the last several years - twice through the >Internal Revenue Code and once during the BCRA debate - and did not subject >them to McCain-Feingold. > >- The FEC should not, in a few weeks, tear up the fabric of tax-exempt law >that has existed for decades and under which thousands of nonprofit groups >have structured their activities and their governance. The Internal >Revenue Code already prohibits 501(c)(3) charities from intervening in >political candidate campaigns, and IRS rules for other 501(c) groups >prohibit them from ever having a primary purpose to influence any candidate >elections -- federal, state, or local. > >- As an example of how seriously the new FEC rules contradict the IRS >political and lobbying rules for nonprofits, consider this: Under the 1976 >public charity lobbying law, a 501(c)(3) group with a $1.5 million annual >budget can spend $56,250 on grassroots lobbying, including criticism of a >federal incumbent candidate in the course of lobbying on a specific bill. >That same action under the new FEC rules would cause the charity to be >regulated as a federal political committee, with devastating impact on its >finances and perhaps even loss of its tax-exempt status. > >- The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be >overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's policies >could turn a nonprofit group OVERNIGHT into a federally regulated political >committee with crippling fund-raising restrictions. > >- Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC would "look back" at a >nonprofit group's activities over the past four years - before >McCain-Feingold was ever passed and the FEC ever proposed these rules - to >determine whether a group's activities qualify it as a federal political >committee. If so, the FEC would require a group to raise hard money to >repay prior expenses that are now subject to the new rules. Further work >would be halted until debts to the "old" organization were repaid. This >rule would jeopardize the survival of many groups. > >- The 4 year "look back" rule would cause a nonprofit group that criticized >or praised the policies of Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Gore in 2000, or any >Congressional incumbent candidate in 2000 or 2002, to be classified as a >political committee now, even though the group has not done so since then. >This severely violates our constitutional guarantees of due process. > >- These changes would impoverish political debate and could act as a de >facto "gag rule" on public policy advocacy. They would insulate public >officials from substantive criticism for their positions on policy issues. >They would actually diminish civic participation in government rather than >strengthen it. This would be exactly the opposite result intended by most >supporters of campaign finance reform. > >- The FEC's proposed rule changes would dramatically impair vigorous debate >about important national issues. It would hurt nonprofit groups across the >political spectrum and restrict First Amendment freedoms in ways that are >unhealthy for our democracy. > >- Any kind of nonprofit -- conservative, liberal, labor, religious, >secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation, >issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules. A >vast number would be essentially silenced on the issues that define them, >whether they are organized as 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 527 organizations. > >- Already, more than five hundred nonprofit organizations - including many >that supported McCain-Feingold like ourselves - have voiced their >opposition to the FEC's efforts to restrict advocacy in the name of >campaign finance reform. > >FOR MORE INFORMATION > >Resources on FEC Proposed Rule Changes Threatening Nonprofit Advocacy >Prepared by the FEC Working Group >http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=14670 > >From two prominent reform organizations: > >Soft Money and the FEC >Common Cause >http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=282 > >Public Campaign Statement regarding FEC Draft Advisory Opinion 2003-37 >Public Campaign >http://www.publiccampaign.org/pressroom/pressreleases/release2004/statement02-17-04.htm > >_______________ > >This is a message from MoveOn.org. To unsubscribe from this list, >please visit our subscription management page at: >http://moveon.org/s?i=2540-1139123-AOO836sRDgZD7TqZtAQvwQ > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: >http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l >To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: >[log in to unmask] > >To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L >Web interface >at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _________________________________________________________________ Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you. http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~