(MintPress) — A conservative campaign advertising group is seeking ways to avoid revealing where its revenue comes from, citing an overreach of government power and causing alarm among those who see the dodging of campaign finance laws as a major roadblock to transparency in a democratic society.
American Future Fund is petitioning the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to clarify the boundaries in campaign finance laws that allow organizations to disclose donors when specifically mentioning a political candidate, saying the move is necessary to protect the interests of donors who wish to remain private. The FEC is set to tackle the petition at its next meeting — a decision that could set a new playing field for political donors.
The petition comes less than a month after a U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Chris Von Hollen, an attorney for Campaign Legal Center who said laws outlined in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) were too ambiguous, allowing organizations to avoid disclosing top donors.
Hardline campaign finance faithfuls praise the Van Hollen vs. FEC ruling as a victory for transparency, citing the need to be firm in enforcement of the law to allow for fair elections that provide the information necessary for citizens to make clear decisions. Drawing a connection to large-scale corporate and union donations could allow voters a glimpse into political candidates’ allegiances, providing information pertinent to democracy.
While the ruling has been made, those with a stake in the game are keeping their eyes on its appeal case, which will determine the future of campaign advertising.
FEC, may I?
A letter sent on behalf of American Future Fund April 18 by the Holtzman Vogel Josefiak PLLC legal firm seeks clarification on whether proposed campaign ads would allow the organization to block access to campaign donor information.
On the table are three ads that target energy policy, birth control provider legislation and the Affordable Care Act. Attached to the letter are examples of transcripts for each topic, providing a variety of ads which do not explicitly name President Barack Obama, but which use his voice, show pictures of the White House and refer to “the administration.” In advertisements opposed to the Affordable Care Act, the transcript describes it as, “Obamacare.”
Under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), organizations that sponsor television advertisements clearly defining a political candidate must reveal those who have donated to make it happen. In essence, American Future Fund is asking whether such ads could be considered as lacking of political candidates’ identities, at which point they would not be subject to laws that require specific donor disclosure.
The letter states that American Future Fund “does not want to subject itself to the burden of filing electioneering communications reports for these advertisements, and does not want to risk being compelled to violate its donors’ privacy expectations as the result of ongoing litigation in Van Hollen vs. FEC.”
Those who do file electioneering communication reports have information regarding advertisement campaign donations publicly posted online, in line with BCRA laws. The American Future Fund is on record this year numerous times for filing communications reports, as are liberal groups, including Planned Parenthood.
The letter goes on to state that the organization “wishes to speak out on issues of national policy significance with minimal government intrusion into its affairs.”
But the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit solely devoted to the following of federally mandated campaign laws, stands by its assertion that attempts to avoid the law through measures attempted by AFF set a dangerous precedent and render the laws useless.
Taking away back door donations
On March 30, a U.S. District Court heard a case presented by U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who challenged the ambiguity of regulations under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that require public records for names of corporations or unions who donate $1,000 or more to organizations for the intended use of “electioneering communications,” which are defined as any broadcast, cable or satellite sponsored messages that clearly speaks for or against a specific political figure.
Hispanic Leadership Fund stepped in as an intervening defendant, making a motion for dismissal of the case, but was denied. And while a ruling was made, the case will be argued again, as it was appealed by Hispanic Leadership Fund and Center for Individual Freedom.
At the heart of the debate is the argument that donors don’t always specifically earmark donations for specific use of political electioneering communications. Donations made to an organization’s general fund do not fall under the blanket of transparency, which is how some donors are working around rules that require full disclosure of donations. That, Van Hollen argued, is contrary to the intent of BCRA — and the Court agreed.
A nationwide demand for transparency
Attempts by organizations to skirt around campaign finance law come at a time of nationwide heated debate surrounding the topic. In response to the 5-4 Supreme Court Citizens United ruling that recognized corporations’ and unions’ First Amendment rights to unlimited campaign-related spending, states throughout the nation began grassroots efforts to fight back.
Three states — Vermont, Hawaii and New Mexico — have passed resolutions calling on Congress to amend the Constitution to prohibit unlimited campaign finance spending, while legislation has been introduced in 22 other states.
The movement is born of concern that, if campaign funding is controlled by only the elite, the needs of the common person, who cannot meet the monetary limits of corporations and unions, will be ignored.
The argument is in line with the Van Hollen vs. FEC ruling and those who seek to open transparency through legal means.