Obama Campaign Files FEC Complaint Against Pro-Hillary 527
The Obama campaign has just announced they've filed an FEC complaint against the American Leadership Project, the 527 group founded by some big Hillary Clinton donors and pro-Hillary unions, on the grounds that they have failed to properly register as a political committee and to obey spending and donation limits in their founding mission of spending on behalf of Hillary Clinton.
"The group isn't making any bones about their purpose here," said Obama campaign chief counsel Bob Bauer on a conference call with reporters, "which makes their legal position hopelessly defective."
As we've previously reported, the ALP has put down $700,000 to run a new attack ad against Barack Obama in the key Indiana primary.
Late Update: Here's the audio from the call:
I doubt the FEC would do anything about this due to the four vacancies on the board.
April 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
There aren't going to be four vacancies forever and once it's staffed up again under President Obama, the blatant bird-flipping willfulness of their violation of the law is going to get them more than some fines and a wag of the finger.
April 30, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
AND IT'S NOT EVEN SWIFTBOAT SEASON !
Note to Axelrod: Don't squander all the whining on HRC. Hold out for the impossible nomination and crank the blubbering up then.
(insert Rove giggling here)
HOPEism: The sinking ship is not half full it is half empty.
April 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
A shot across the bow of Hillary's SwiftBoat.
April 30, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
“527,” which means it is not bound by federal campaign finance laws as long as it does not directly advocate on behalf of a particular candidate.
The group announced earlier this week that it was planning to buy $700,000 worth of airtime in the state leading up to Tuesday’s vote. It has aired other spots in support of Clinton in key primary states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Texas.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/30/obama-campaign-files-fec-complaint-against-pro-clinton-group/
April 30, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are clearly pro-Hillary they are advocating on her behalf.
April 30, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are, but the ad could be construed just as easily as pro-Republican or pro-Libertarian or pro-Green Party
April 30, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
They only fall under FEC limitations if it specifically targets a candidate. If they do this, they are subject to the same limits as PACs. This is where the fight is, and trying to prove it's targeting a specific candidate and not an issue is very difficult.
April 30, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
except Obama is running against any of those groups. This is a primary.
April 30, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
1. Has the ad been aired YET?
2. Has the ad actually broken the law?
April 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Left, whether or not the ad has actually aired (and haven't they already aired ads?) the group is not legal. Their founding mission is to elect Hillary Clinton, not support the green party, or whatever. It is started by donors maxed out for Hillary trying to find a way around campaign finance laws. Whether or not it can be construed in a different way is irrelevant. It doesn't mean it's provable, but like Swift Boats the group is violating campaign finance laws, patently and blatantly.
April 30, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, but-- and I ask this honestly, out of total ignorance of how campaign finance law works-- how is it that the "American Leadership Project" 527's ads would be illegal, but MoveOn is running this ad against John McCain now and that's apparently legal or at least the Obama campaign's not complaining? What's the difference?
April 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, there is a difference. I was curious about this, too. If I have this right, a 527 cannot have the express purpose of electing or defeating a candidate. They must be primarily an issue advocacy group. If so, they can run candidate ads but it must not be the founding or primary purpose of the group. So MoveOn, Club for Growth, EMILY'S LIST can all advocate for a candidate within their broader mission, but Swift Boat veterans and this Hillary group are entirely illegal.
April 30, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad isn't illegal in my interpretation of the ad. It doesn't call for anyone to vote against Obama, just to call him to fix something that isn't necessarily true. That's how the SwftShitheads got away with their BS commercials. They never called for anyone to vote against Kerry. They were just doing a "public service" letting everyone know Kerry is a commie and hippie lovin' traitor. Tasteless and stupid, but not technically illegal.
This sin't to say I don't think this ad is Bullshit, it's just not illegal.
April 30, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Swift Boats were fined. They didn't get out of it.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2006/FECSettlement.12.13.asp
April 30, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, didn't know that! Too bad it came two years late. But it still shows us what the illegal part of their ads were. Not sure this one is up to it.
April 30, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, to perhaps correct myself, isn't there a time constraint on these ads? If I'm not mistaken, these groups aren't able to run ads within 30 days of an election...but it could be a general election, not primaries. Not sure, but something that the Obama campaign might be looking at.
April 30, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difference is the donation limits that can be used. If a 527 specifically targets a candidate then it falls under the same limitations as a PAC. If it is merely "issue-oriented" it does not and all the money in the world can be poured into it. This is very difficult to prove however. If they truly want to limit this type of thing this issue has to be addressed in some manner. There is no precedent that I know of that has established what constitutes issue advocacy or electioneering activities in a court concerning 527s.
April 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lois Capps just came out for Obama! That's 3 to Hillary's 2.
April 30, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think they might have found a loophole. They are not advocating for hillary. They just want someone other than obama.
They should change their name to "want clinton". Wealthy a**h***s not terribly creative, living in negativity toward obama now.
April 30, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton(NeoCon-NY) and her neocon FAUX Democrat supporters are into swiftboating how Karl Rovian of them...NO SURPRISE HERE!
April 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
TPM EC -- where is the story on Hillary's tie to the vote suppression effort in North Carolina? Strange that it hasn't made its way here yet...
April 30, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go look on the front page:
Josh is apologizing for presuming a tie to Hillary which is not supported by the facts.
Of course, that won't stop you, will it?
April 30, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
whine whine whine....
wahh wah wahh.....
And he won't even debate anymore cuz, ABC asked him mean questions!
LOL
what a bunch of cry babies.
Ha hahahahh
April 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Under the law, 527's are allowed to run ads as long as they do not advocate for a candidate.
This means they are free to HIT the other candidate on whatever issue they choose, as long as they do not specifically say "don't vote for so-and-so", or "vote for this-and-so".
Word is the ads they produced will hit Obama on his record and his statements, and they do not mention Hillary. This is within the scope of the law.
The Obama campaign is making a transparent move now to try to shape public opinion, they know they cannot have any hope that this group will be fined or found in violation of FEC law anytime soon.
In any case, FEC has been lax in enforcement and punishment: Even the fine they levied, 300K, to the Shithead Veterans for Lies, was insignificant for a 527 group that handled tens of millions in donations.
Fining them years after Bush was sworn in basically means they influenced the 2004 Election with impunity.
April 30, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink