media fund ups anti-bush ad buy to $5.09M - check it out

[newsguyatl]

expect to see this covered on cnn and elsewhere tomorrow. here's the text of the new ad.


ANNCR: President Bush, remember the American dream? It's about hope, not fear. It's about more jobs at home, not tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas. It's about giving our children their chance, not our debt. It's about providing health care for people, just not profits. It's about fighting for the middle class, not special interests. George Bush's priorities are eroding the American dream. It's time to take our country back from corporate greed and make America work for every American.

=======



The Media Fund has upped the ad buy from the $4.5 million to $5.09 million. It will air starting tomorrow in 17 battleground states for two weeks, until March 23.

In response to claims from Bush-Cheney ’04 that the ad is being paid for with illegal money, Sarah Leonard, a spokeswoman for The Media Fund, said: “The Bush campaign is simply trying to scare our donors with their ridiculous claims of illegality. Are they making the same claim about Republican leaning groups? No. This is just politics not surprising in an election year and should not be taken any more seriously than that. The Bush campaign is trying to silence the voices of progressives in the grassroots across the country.”

[newsguyatl]

1. unbelievable

below is what the complaint the bush team is filing with the fec tommorow. have these guys NO shame?!

========
The Honorable Bradley Smith

Chairman

Federal Election Commission

999 E Street, NW

Washington, DC 20463



Re: Media Fund

1120 Connecticut Avenue #1100

Washington, DC 20036



and various contributors<1>



Dear Chairman Smith:



Media Fund, a Section 527 organization,<2> and its various donors are blatantly using illegal “soft money” to influence the Presidential election. This knowing and willful circumvention of the new federal election laws by liberal special interests through the purchase of television time to broadcast the advertisement, the pertinent portions of which are addressed infra, demands rapid action and severe sanctions by the Federal Election Commission.



As an initial matter, because this advertisement attacks and opposes President George W. Bush, a candidate for federal office, and costs more then $1,000, Media Fund is required to use “hard” federal dollars to pay for these ads and to register as a federal political committee.



Created as a “shadow Democratic party,”<3> the Media Fund violates federal law by using all soft dollars to usurp the role the Democratic Party played in past election cycles. This use of soft-money by a Section 527 organization knowingly and willfully violates the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (collectively “the Act”) and a ruling the Commission issued last month in AO 2003-37. Media Fund could have aired this advertisement through a federally registered separate segregated fund, but instead chose to use illegal soft dollars raised from liberal special interests in excess of the limits of federal law. Based upon media reports, it appears Media Fund solicited, and donors knowingly gave, soft money contributions for the purpose of defeating President Bush. This subjects Media Fund and its donors to enforcement actions and penalties under BCRA. As detailed below, if Media Fund’s donors knowingly and willfully contributed illegal soft money for the purpose of influencing a federal election they are subject to knowing and willful violations.



Media Fund Has Failed to Register as a Political Committee as Required by the Federal Election Campaign Act.



Under the Act, any entity that spends or raises more than $1,000 in a calendar year,<4> “for the purpose of influencing any election for federal office”<5> must register as a federal political committee with the Commission. A committee airing ads cannot select whether or not it is a federal political committee that must register – its actions determine its status under the law.<6> This filing requirement is not self-selecting. Media Fund’s television buy attacking and opposing a clearly identified federal candidate and costing more than $1,000 requires it to register and abide by the limits and source requirements of the Act.



While Media Fund’s ads would not have fallen under the Act in previous elections, they clearly do as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s December 2003 opinion upholding BCRA. Prior to McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 619 (2003), the lower courts had only permitted Federal regulation of communications that involved “express advocacy” as described by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). However, BCRA and the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the Act beyond “express advocacy.”



The Commission found last month that the Act required any communication which “promotes, supports, attacks or opposes” a federal candidate to fall under the “hard dollar” rules of the Act. AO 2003-27. The Commission, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 619 at 675 n. 64 (2003), held that communications referring to a clearly identified federal candidate are for the purpose of influencing a federal election. The Commission confirmed this, stating “communications that promote, support, attack or oppose a clearly identified Federal candidate” have a “dramatic effect” on federal elections. AO 2003-37, at 3.



In AO 2003-37, the Commission told Americans for a Better Country (“ABC”), a Section 527 organization like the Media Fund, that it could not use donations in excess of the Act’s limits or from prohibited sources for communications that “promote, support, attack or oppose” a candidate for federal office. AO 2003-37, at 9-10. While Media Fund allies have argued that AO 2003-37 does not apply to Media Fund because it did not register as a federal committee, AO 2003-37 reaffirmed the Act’s threshold requirement that any group that raises or spends more than $1,000 is required to register and become a federal committee.



Media Fund was created by former Clinton advisor and Democrat Party operative Harold Ickes and aided by former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan.<7> According to published reports, Media Fund plans to raise as much as $80 million in “soft money” to “fund an independent advertising campaign for the eventual Democratic presidential nominee.”<8> Further, it is clear that Ickes and Media Fund intend to flout the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. ____, 124 S.Ct. 619 at 675 n. 64 (2003). Media Fund has been clear about its purpose: “The fundraising drive, Ickes said, is meant to replace the soft money funding that helped the Democratic Party run $75 million in issue ads in 2000. The Media Fund, he said, can raise unlimited amounts to finance radio and television from late March until the conventions.”<9>



The advertisement being aired by Media Fund identifies President Bush by name twice at the beginning of the advertisement and again about 20 seconds into the 30 second advertisement. The advertisement’s audio states: “George Bush's priorities are eroding the American Dream. It's time to take our country back from corporate greed and make America work for every American.” This clearly attacks and opposes President Bush.



Media Fund’s Solicitation of Soft Money Funds While Advocating the Defeat of President Bush Violates the Federal Election Campaign Act



In Advisory Opinion 2003-37, the Commission advised ABC that the section 527 committee could not solicit non-federal funds in fundraising communications that conveyed ABC’s support or opposition to a specific federal candidate. AO 2003-37, p. 19-20. The Commission determined that 2 U.S.C. § 431(8) means that federal political committees can only raise funds using such solicitations if the funds are subject to the prohibitions and limitations of the Act.



Media Fund’s website<10> proclaims its opposition to President Bush’s reelection. Its website says, “In less than four years, George W. Bush and those that support his radical agenda have given us a country less secure, a foreign policy in disarray, record job losses, deficits that mortgage our children's future, environmental policies that abandon common sense and attacks on civil liberties that undermine the very premise of our democracy.” This is clearly an attack on President Bush and a mischaracterization of the President’s policies.

Media Fund’s website provides a link labeled “Donate” that links to a page entitled “Victory Campaign 2004.org.”<11> At the top of its on-line donation page, “Victory Campaign 2004” says, “I want to help change the course of the country away from the Bush administration’s radical agenda….”<12> This solicitation and disclaimer indicates that contributions over $5,000 are accepted and will be placed in a non-federal account. This violates the principle laid out by the Commission in AO 2003-37. The Commission indicated that only donations subject to the prohibitions and limitations of the Act may be raised when indicating opposition to a clearly identified federal candidate. AO 2003-37, p. 19-20.

Given the interpretation of 2 U.S.C. § 431(8) provided to ABC, it is clear that Media Fund is violating the Act by soliciting soft-money through a fundraising solicitation that expressly advocates the defeat of President Bush.



Media Fund’s Solicitations to Its Donors Are in Violation of Federal Law



The Commission has determined that federally registered political committees, as Media Fund is required to be, cannot solicit soft money “by using the names of specific Federal candidates in a manner that will convey plan to use those funds to support or oppose specific federal candidates….” AO 2003-37, pp. 19-20. Such solicitations, the Commission determined, violate federal law. 2 U.S.C. § 431(8).



Although Media Fund has struggled to keep its fundraising efforts from public view, published reports described a December event in Hollywood with representatives of liberal special interests where Media Fund sought donors and plotted strategy to raise soft money to defeat President Bush.<13> Under the auspices of an umbrella group called the “Joint Victory Campaign” comprised of Media Fund and another soft dollar Section 527 organization called America Coming Together, donors were asked to contribute soft money for the purpose of defeating President Bush.



The “Joint Victory Campaign” donated $3 million in soft money to the Media Fund and reported this donation to the IRS. In fact, this is the only donation Media Fund had received as of December 31, 2003 according to its IRS report. IRS records indicate liberal special interests - both corporate and individuals - donated large sums of soft money to the Joint Victory Campaign which then funneled this soft money to the Media Fund. Donors to the Joint Victory Campaign include Laurie David of Los Angeles ($95,000)<14>, Sustainable World Corporation of Houston ($3,100,000),<15> Linda Pritzker of Houston ($900,000),<16> Steve Bing of Los Angeles ($1,998,397)<17> and Agnes Varis of New York City ($345,000).<18>





Conclusion



Because the attached advertisement clearly attacks President Bush, an identified candidate for federal office, and is being broadcast in states commonly considered crucial to the outcome of this fall’s Presidential election, Media Fund cannot use illegal soft money and is required to register with the Commission.



As a result of the above information, Bush-Cheney ’04, Inc. requests that the Federal Election Commission conduct a rapid investigation into these allegations, question the individuals and corporations that have donated excessive sums, and declare that respondents have knowingly and willfully violated the federal campaign finance laws, impose sanctions appropriate to these violations and take such further action as may be appropriate.



Sincerely,



Thomas J. Josefiak
General Counsel





Thomas J. Josefiak, hereby verifies that the statements made in the above complaint are, upon information and belief, true.



Sworn to pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1001.







__________________________

Thomas J. Josefiak



County of Arlington

Commonwealth of Virginia



The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn

before me this ____ day of March, 2004 by