Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 2 Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

Rove's Money Tramples Democracy

By       Message Kevin Zeese       (Page 1 of 3 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H2 9/29/10

Author 690
Become a Fan
  (61 fans)
- Advertisement -
Reprinted from Consortium News

Editor's Note: As expected, last January's Citizens United ruling by five Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the floodgates to special interest money inundating the November elections.

However, there are still laws that pertain to the new political groups being created to exploit this money-in-politics opening and those laws are being widely flouted, says election activist Kevin Zeese in this guest essay:

Organizations are being set up under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code to manipulate the outcome of the mid-term elections. A 501(c)(4) is a lobbying organization that is not allowed to spend most of its time on electioneering.

- Advertisement -

Yet, these new organizations are spending massively on advertising for and against candidates, developing data bases of voters, creating messages for candidates and planning get-out-the-vote drives. These activities make them "political committees" that should obey election laws, including making the names of donors public.

Thus, political operatives, such as Karl Rove, are misusing the tax laws by creating organizations, like American Crossroads, that use anonymous and unlimited donations from corporations and the super-rich to overwhelm the political process with attack ads against disfavored candidates.

As the New York Times reports, "Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies would certainly seem to the casual observer to be a political organization: Karl Rove, a political adviser to President George W. Bush, helped raise money for it; the group is run by a cadre of experienced political hands; it has spent millions of dollars on television commercials attacking Democrats in key Senate races across the country."

- Advertisement -

The central legal issue is whether groups like Rove's American Crossroads are "political committees" under federal election laws. Federal law defines a political committee as any group that receives and spends more than $1,000 "for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office." [See 2 U.S.C. 431(4), (8)(A) and (9)(A).]

In Buckley v. Valeo the Supreme Court defined the term "political committee" to encompass organizations that are either "under the control of a candidate or the major purpose of which is the nomination or election of a candidate." [Emphasis added.]

American Crossroads and similar organizations were set up to influence the outcome of the mid-term elections and take advantage of the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision last January that opened the door to unlimited donations.

But these groups meet the two-part test for being a "political committee": (1) its "major purpose" is to influence candidate elections and (2) it receives and spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing federal elections.

The New York Times describes the legal test for 501(c)(4)s or "the rule of thumb" as "more than 50 percent of a 501(c)(4)'s activities cannot be political."

"But," the Times reported, "that has not stopped Crossroads and a raft of other nonprofit advocacy groups like it -- mostly on the Republican side, so far -- from becoming some of the biggest players in this year's midterm elections, in part because of the anonymity they afford donors, prompting outcries from campaign finance watchdogs."

- Advertisement -
In the Citizens United decision, while striking down restrictions on spending by groups, such as corporations, seeking to influence elections, the Supreme Court upheld election law provisions that required disclosure of the source of electoral-related funding.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, described the benefits of such disclosure to shareholders of the corporation as well as to voters writing:

"With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3


- Advertisement -

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   News 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Kevin Zeese is co-chair of Come Home America, www.ComeHomeAmerica.US which seeks to end U.S. militarism and empire. He is also co-director of Its Our Economy, www.ItsOurEconomy.US which seeks to democratize the economy and give people greater (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Why I Was Among Eight Health Care Advocates to Get Arrested in the Senate Yesterday

The Seeds of Rebellion Are Taking Root, and Protests Against Injustices Are Blooming Across the Country


Ron Paul Press Conference Unifies Third Party and Independent Candidates Around Four Key Positions

Paperless Electronic Voting Machines Flipping Votes from Obama to McCain in West Virginia

Max Baucus Should Not Be Deciding Health Care for America