A question about 527's and McCain-Feingold

[zmdem]

My understanding of the M-F law re: 527's is that the 527 cannot coordinate their efforts with either the candidate's election organization or with the candidate's political party and that the prohibition works in both directions.

I would assume that whatever other coordinating activites are prohibited, the following would be included:

Content of the ad's
Where the ad's would be broadcast.
When the ad's would be broadcast.

My question is "if a candidate dissaproves of the attack ad's a 527 is putting out about his opponent and he calls on the 527 to stop the ad's, isn't he effectively coordinating with the 527 as to content and also the timing of the ad, i.e., he is telling the 527 when they should stop broadcasting of the ad. Since under M-F, this is illegal coordination, isn't the candidate forbidden to speak out ?"

[kikiek]

1. Asking them to quit isn't same as coordinating with them. Coordinating is

planning what to say, where to play them, etc. Oh wait...that is what the Bushies did. Guess they broke the law. Asking them to quit would be legal so it won't ever happen. Trying to make it about all 527's is another distraction ploy. If they aren't outright lies they are just free speech. Big difference between slanderous lies and free speech though.

[zmdem]

2. Not sure I agree

527 puts out attack ad benefical to candidate. Ad backfires on candidate. Candidate publically asks that the ads be withdrawn. Ads are withdrawn. How is this not coordination ? Plainly the 527 took their orders from the candidate.

[kikiek]

5. You're just asking. Anybody can ask. That falls far short of

coordinating or planning. You need much more concrete evidence than asking. Like admitting that you were lawyer for bush and the sbvts, or you were on the vets for bush re election board and sbvts. They were listed as members. I could ask them to quit running it. That doesn't make a collaborator.

[zmdem]

6. Technically I agree but

In the real world the sbvts are attempting to influence the election in Pres. Bush's favour. If Bush views the ads as counterproductive and signals this to the vets by publically calling for their removal and the vets do remove the ads, how is this really not coordination ?

Aren't the vets doing Bush's bidding by removing the ads ?

[kikiek]

7. I see it more as respecting his wishes. I haven't heard anyone mention

during the numerous calls to bush to end them that it would violate the m/f. Even if it was iffy someone would have said that by now. We apparenlty aren't going to agree on this. I wouldn't worry about bush violating the law anyways. Take him out of the WH in cuffs far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't go looking for excuses to make for him for not doing it either.

[zmdem]

8. "respecting wishes" = coordination

my point isn't about Bush or Kerry. Both have 527s on their sides. Frankly, I think the law violates the first amendmendt and the supreme court ruled badly.

[kikiek]

9. I still think you're stretching. Guess we aren't going to agree on it.

[Yupster]

3. This actually happened a few election cycles ago

It was a senate race somewhere out west.

A Republican group attacked the Democratic candidate for being against some bill. Turns out the Republican voted against the bill too.

The Republican called for the group to pull the ad, but they said it would be illegal and kept the run that they had paid for before quietly going away.

Wish I remembered the race, but it was a little story about eight years ago.

[zmdem]

4. I don't think that would apply

McCain-Feingold was not in place at the time. I don't think the content of the ad is really the issue, its coordiantion between the several parties that is the issue, unless I'm missing something.