But Obama plagiarized!

The debate should be interesting tonight...

This is absolutely a cold, calculated move to violate the law for the benefit of the candidate, and to assume that any penalty will be so deferred into the future that the immediate benefits can be gained now without consequence."

Love the choice of language here. "cold", "calculating" used to describe what supporters of Clinton are trying to do? Bet that wasn't an accident.

Wonder if this will be brought up tonight.

This is a very interesting statement.

How is it illegal? I mean, what is the legal justification? There is no link, so there is no way for us to see what their argument is.

Groups like this are forbidden from working primarily for the purpose of electing or defeating a candidate.

Really? What happened with the swift boaters then? I'm pretty sure that 527 existed only to sink Kerry. They did exist for a long time, however.

Yep, totally illegal. Me thinks that the clintons have a big problem. 13 million in debt and no money coming in. Maybe she doesn't make it to 3/4. Wouldn't that be a hoot.

delmoi,

I believe some legislation was passed between 2004 and now that limits 527's further than they were previously. Check out this interesting post at The Field related to the new HRC 527 not filing with the FEC as it is apparently required to do:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=706

Is Obama the American Mandela? Obama brings a message of hope and change to a country at the crossroads. It is choice between the past and the future. But is Obama the American Mandela who could inspire Americans to a better future at home? And a future where America takes it rightful place at the global table? Is he the one? The question of whether Obama is the American Mandela is discussed in my blog Angry African on the Loose at http://angryafrican.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/is-obama-the-american-mandela/

If you see the ad, they talk a lot about Hillary's positions on things and end it with 'Ask Hillary to continue her work on this' or something like that. I think the problem is that this comes a little too close to promotion of Hillary in a campaign ad type way.

The swiftboat ads & moveon ads were more aimed at a specific 'issue'. Also these ads are planned to run specifically in Ohio just before the election. Instead of nationally a month or so before. It is probably splitting hairs a bit but that is kind of what these 527s do and if they don't do that just right then they are breaking the law.

One other point, MoveOn is helping Obama with volunteers and fund-raising but are NOT running ads on his behalf. This is entirely legal and nothing different than what unions and other groups do.

Well, in theory, the SwiftBoaters for Truth weren't formed exclusively to defeat Sen. Kerry (Cough! Cough! Cough!) but is an organization of "former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on U.S. Navy "Swift Boats" or in affiliated commands" to promote/protect the history, honor of that command .... or some such thing(Cough! Cough!). So it was in pursuing THAT goal, they just happened to decide their history/honor was being besmirched by Kerry's claims ...

And it probably is just that easy to come up with a (Cough! Cough!) 'legitimate' reason for any 527's existence ....... but the timing and probably the amount of planning that went into this 527 does make it highly suspicious. So rather than bluffing, I think Obama's team is calling *their* bluff: saying, in effect, "Yeah, SURE you have some other purpose. Good luck convincing the IRS" (or whoever it is they have to convince).

And it looks like those who are forming the ALP are being so clumsy about it that they might well get zinged. I've about decided that the HRC campaign (mainly Penn?) is a Karl Rove "wannabe" -- same methods and goals but not nearly as successful in execution.

MoveOn.org (which was founded in 1998 and so certainly wasn't created to support Obama's candidacy) states that its mission is to "bring real Americans back into the political process" and in fact it does a number of things toward that goal in addition to endorsing certain candidates toward that goal. (I'm not saying for sure that it's a 527 because I don't know but its in that general area.) -- And unions can endorse and spend money in support of a candidate ... but supporting those candidates isn't the sole purpose or function of the union.

What it seems Obama's lawyers are going to claim (with some justification, it appears) is that this ALP came into being for the sole and exclusive purpose of promoting Clinton's candidacy - in other words, as a way for her and her maxxed-out major contributors to get around the direct political contribution limitations. If they can't prove other purpose, then they would be sanctioned (don't know about donors but possibly losing some partial tax credit?). Even if ALP can come up with another reason for existance, they'll have to *work* for it.

When every day counts ...... plus the ruckus will have perhaps discouraged donors and have make the public aware of what is going on. It's not a 'faked' objection at all.

No way around it -- the Obama campaign's organization and effectiveness is quite something! (And, the best part, it's nothing to be ashamed of, unlike other campaigns called 'effective'.)

LOL, It is a little sad that even HRC's 527's are bad campaigners. Is anything associated or 'not associated' with her campaign competent??
Ready on Day One my a**!

Who's going to do the fining, if this is illegal?

The FEC, which doesn't have a quorum right now?

This statement seems like a warning to the supporters of this 527, rather than a prediction about what's going to happen, because the FEC isn't able to do anything, is it?

Waa, waa, waa. BO and his campaign are a bunch of whiners. If the 527 needs any material, I hope they give me a call. Raise the money, run the ads, pay the fine.

Waa, waa, waa. BO and his campaign are a bunch of whiners. If the 527 needs any material, I hope they give me a call. Raise the money, run the ads, pay the fine.
Posted by leighb

Interesting. So you like people who can make $100K donations having a disproportionate infulence on an elecltion? Nothing like creating a 527 at the last minute to get around those pesky indivudual donor limits of $2300 a person. I guess I can see why you're not behind a grassroots candidate then.

I am a lawyer, although I have never done work with campaign financing. I don't think that this 527 is in fact illegal, or that the individual donors can be held responsible for violations of campaign financing laws. Obama is simply trying to highlight that Hiliary is so desperate for money that she now must circumvent financing laws with a 527 group. It may not be illegal, but it violates the spirit of limits on campaign contributions. These 100 or so rich folks, who can donate $100,000 each, are having as much influence on the Texas voters as the nearly one million donors to the Obama campaign - who give small donations. (An individual donor may only give $2300 in the primary phase and $2300 in the general election to any one candidate - the idea is to level out the influence of money on campaigns. Hillary's donor's are "maxed out" - they cannot give more to the campaign legally, so they create a 527 that is "independent" of the campaign.) This group was created to circumvent the law, and it may cost Hillary more in public condemnation that it gains her in free ads. At least, that's what Obama's people hope. One caveat - Hillary's campaign can't be seen as managing this 527 or it is illegal.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have an opinion of this as an American.

The moral and legal decline which the Republicans, jumpstarted by Ronald Reagan, pushed upon our nation was the dismantling of regulatory power which had been instituted to protect all citizens. That dismantling of regulatory oversight negatively affected clean air, clean water, wholesome food, fair taxation, predatory business practices, dishonest advertising, interstate commerce, price fixing, union strength to countervail against unfair labor practices, legal recourse for the unmonied, public service fair doctrine requirements for media giants, as well as equality of voting rights, and probably a slew of areas I have not listed.

In short, the Republicans took our government out of the role of stewardship of 'the common good' and set the government into the role of serving those wielding money, power and connections.

One outcome of deregulation is the lock which special interests have enjoyed in Washington, to the absurd extent that lobbyists have been writing legislation for years, and industry faithful are blatantly put in to head up the 'regulatory agencies' which oversee their buddies.
this is beyond a case of the foxes watching the hen house..... it is more the case of the hen house being replaced by a fox-raising enterprise.

Because this has been developing and growing for nearly 30 years, we have politicians in Washington who adapted to live and thrive and get re-elected in this system and we have a public that has become dispirited about ever changing the system back to one which considers and promotes the common good.

Hillary's wealthy 527 friends are obviously folks who have learned to adapt and make use of what the Republicans have wrought for more than two decades. I can see that even her lowly supporters on this site are aligned with 'well adjusted' Republicans in feeling ok about trashing the letter of and spirit of the FEC regulations.

After all, somebody needs to fight against Obama amassing of a grassroots movement which could end the 'business as usual' power in Washington. Never thought I'd see a Clinton used as a symbol against the common good, though. Life is stranger than fiction sometimes.

Please go to :
donatebarackobama.com and GIVE, I have twice in the last two days. HRC, who I respected, has lost all good faith with me. PLEASE GIVE, even $10. Thank you.