527 Reform

Thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts about the 527 Reform Act of 2005 (S. 271). I appreciate hearing from you.

Throughout my service in Congress, I have supported efforts to reform our nation's campaign finance system to limit the influence of money and help restore the public's confidence in the way we elect our leaders. I was an original cosponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA), which was signed into law in 2002. This law made many important reforms to reduce the influence of campaign contributions.

S. 271, the 527 Reform Act, will do little to curb the power of big money in our political system. Wealthy individuals still will be free to spend unlimited amounts of money to further their political interests. They will be able to pay for communications directly, buy as many ads as they desire, and say whatever they wish, without being subject to any constraints or reporting requirements under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Those rights are guaranteed by our Constitution.

However, under S. 271, two or more citizens of modest means who join together to promote their political views and decide for tax purposes to register as a 527 organization would be subject to stringent federal regulations and limitations on the amounts and sources of the funds they may raise. Under S. 271, if a 527 organization spends more than $1,000 on a communication that "promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes" a clearly identified federal candidate at any time up to a year before a general election, the 527 organization must register as a federal political action committee subject to regulation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). They would be limited to raising money in restricted increments and would be precluded from accepting donations from a single individual that exceed $25,000 in any one year. Consequently, S. 271 would amplify the voices of powerful wealthy interests at the expense of independent citizen groups who pool their resources.

This measure also would do little to prevent corporate entities from spending their profits on messages about the issue positions of federal candidates or public officials. Except for the brief 30 or 60 day period immediately prior to a primary or general election, when the electioneering communication provisions of BCRA prohibit the use of corporate funds for broadcast advertising, corporations are free to communicate with the public on issues without restriction. Even during the 30 and 60 day blackout periods, such entities can continue to use the mail and phones to communicate with the public. While S. 271 would cripple the activities of groups supported by individuals and operated independently of candidates and parties, it would not address any of the money flowing into the electoral process through trade associations and the corporate community.

S. 271 would squelch the civic engagement that characterizes a healthy democracy. The measure undermines the valuable role played by independent, citizen-based groups that have helped raise voter turnout to the historic levels witnessed in recent federal elections. A record 122.3 million people, or 60% of those eligible, cast a vote for President in 2004. Yet S. 271 would require any 527 organization that spends more than $1,000 during a calendar year on "voter drive activity," -- including voter registration activity, voter identification, and get-out-the-vote activity in connection with a federal election -- to operate as a federal political action committee. At a time when the number of voters is rising, I question a policy that would hinder the forces that brought more citizens into the electoral process.

The 527 Reform Act undermines the rights of association and freedom of speech. The enactment of this measure would effectively remove independent voices from the public debate by severely limiting the ability of citizen groups to call attention to the issues of concern to ordinary Americans citizens who share their values.

When the Senate Rules Committee, of which I am a member, considered S. 271, several amendments were adopted, including one I offered that would address the high cost of campaign advertising. Since advertising costs drive the search for ever-increasing campaign contributions, my amendment would require broadcast stations to charge candidates and parties the lowest rate available to purchase time to run political advertisements. My amendment also would make campaign purchases of broadcast time non-preemptible, ensuring that candidate and party advertisements are not bumped by other advertisers willing to pay more in the bidding war for airtime.

I voted against the Rules Committee's motion to send the 527 Reform Act to the Senate floor for further action, but the amended version of this measure was reported by the Rules Committee on April 27, 2005, with a new bill number, S. 1053. I will continue to monitor this measure in case it is considered for a vote by the full Senate.

Thanks again for contacting me. Please feel free to keep in touch.
Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

george bush the lesser, killing you slowly

Cindy Skrzycki. The Washington Post. 2005/09/27. Page D1.
The Bush administration, which advocates broad reforms of the legal system, has proposed federal regulations that would prohibit some types of lawsuits. The White House has been using the regulatory system at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Food and Drug Administration, and banking agencies to preempt lawsuits that it sees as violating federal standards. Glenn Lammi, chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which represents business interests, says that the Bush administration has been working on these smaller issues since it has not been able to gather enough support to get far-reaching tort reforms enacted. For example, on August 19 the NHTSA issued a long-sought proposal to increase the strength of vehicle roofs, which sometimes collapse in rollover accidents. Auto safety groups not only criticized the proposal for not going far enough to save lives in rollovers, but also strongly objected to a provision that would make it more difficult for consumers to file lawsuits related to roof defects against auto makers.

separation is imperative

i'm not sure what to think about fema reimbursing religious groups. any thoughts? i understand that, in theory, it's any group that helped with housing evacuees from the gulf storms, but the government giving religious organizations money makes me nervous. where's the separation of church and state? i guess what really galls me is that religious groups, and especially those damn conservative christians, have pushed for this. that, coupled with this administration's support for religious (namely christian) organizations makes me uncomfortable. for god's sake, the president wants 'intelligent design' taught in schools alongside evolution. what next, teaching the bible as 'alternative history'?

silence freedom

please check out this site. it's related to the aclu's attack on the patriot act. thank you.

outside observations

excerpts from politically-minded emails today:

Bush Suspended Requirement for Katrina Contractors to Have an Affirmative Action Plan for Veterans, Minorities, Women, and Disabled Persons. Bush's Labor Department has suspended requirements that government contractors have a written affirmative action plan addressing the employment of women, minorities, Vietnam veterans, and the disabled if the companies are first-time government contractors working on post-Katrina reconstruction. According to the New York Times, "the move comes as President Bush has tried to address the perception of unfairness in the government's response to the hurricane." According to Shirley J. Wilcher, the interim executive director of the American Association for Affirmative Action and former deputy assistant secretary for federal contract compliance, "It is not simply a paperwork exercise. It is the basis for companies to be mindful of their obligation not to discriminate." [New York Times, 9/20/05]


Bush Suspended Davis-Bacon Prevailing Wage Rules, Allowing Contractors to Hire Employees at Depressed Wages. Bush issued a proclamation for parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida that suspends the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931- which requires employers to pay locally prevailing wages to construction workers on federally-financed projects- for Katrina-related work. While touted as a method to save taxpayers money, Bush's proclamation does not require contractors to pass on savings they accrue as a result of cutting wages. According to a Denver Post editorial, "Bush is now using Hurricane Katrina as an excuse to trash more than seven decades of labor law, allowing Katrina contractors to hire employees at whatever wages the depressed local conditions might warrant." [San Francisco Chronicle, 9/20/05; Columbus Dispatch, 9/19/05; Denver Post, editorial, 9/19/05]


This week the Bush Administration prevented witnesses from providing public testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about Able Danger, "a secret military unit that is said to have identified four of the Sept. 11 hijackers more than a year before the terrorist attacks." [Foxnews.com, 9/22/05] Even Republican members of Congress blasted the White House's unwillingness to be open and honest with the American people about our fight against terrorism.

The Bush White House has once again shown a preference for playing politics rather than protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. At every turn, this Administration has been unwilling to investigate its own officials, their friends and their cronies. Now, even Republicans in Congress are rebelling against Bush's inability to tell the truth about his Administration's failures. It's time for President Bush to stop stonewalling and demonstrate genuine leadership by working with Congress to independently and thoroughly answer the serious questions about our national security raised by the failures of Able Danger and the failed response to Katrina.

GOP Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA): Bush Administration Owes American People an Explanation. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter blasted the Pentagon's decision not to allow five key officials to testify in front of his committee. "I think the Department of Defense owes the American people an explanation of what went on here. The American people are entitled to some answers." Specter also noted, "that looks to me like it may be obstruction of the committee's activities, something we will have to determine." [Reuters, 9/22/05; AP, 9/22/05; Foxnews.com, 9/22/05]

GOP Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA): Pentagon Wants to Avoid "Egg on Their Face." "A Pentagon spokesman had said the decision to limit testimony was based on concerns about disclosing classified information, but Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said he believed the reason was a concern 'that they'll just have egg on their face.'" [New York Times, 9/22/05]

GOP Representative Curt Weldon (R-PA): "There's something wrong with the system, and we should be able to discuss that." [Portland (Maine) Press-Herald, 9/22/05]

"why stand on a silent platform?"

hey, can anyone tell me why the democrats are being such pansies? where's the leadership? where are the ideas? it's not enough to complain about bush and his cronies, not enough to argue against his ideas and plans. have your own ideas, have your own plans. someone needs to step up and give us an alternative to believe, not some half-baked 'at least i'm not george bush' mushiness. why did kerry lose? because he didn't stand for anything. the american people wanted someone who meant something, and bush, for better or worse, means something.

please, democrats: grow a spine and take a leadership position. give us ideas, give us beliefs, give us a plan for the future. don't just counter everything bush says, say something better. i don't care if the american people don't like your ideas, i don't care if what you say won't win you votes. have ideas, say something. that, alone, will give you legitimacy, will win you attention and support. the present spineless blob called the democratic party is a travesty.

the true undermining of democracy is the ineffectiveness of an opposition party to show any true opposition. it's not just that the republicans are subverting the election system, it's that they've pushed the debate to that fact, rather than the qualitative reasons for why people aren't voting democrat. they've stolen the focus on ideas, they decide what gets discussed and argued about. the democrats are just responding, being reactive. they need to be proactive or they stand for nothing.

a turning point, or more of the same shit from george w. bush?

below are excerpts from this msn article:

Following the Gatreaux model in Chicago, the Clinton administration launched a "scatter-site" housing program in four cities that found homes for the poor in mixed-income neighborhoods. While the move doesn't much benefit adults, their children—confronted with higher expectations and a less harmful peer group—do much better. "It really helped in Atlanta," says Rep. John Lewis, a hero of the civil-rights movement. Bush and the GOP Congress killed the idea, as well as the Youth Opportunity Grant program, which had shown success in partnering with the private sector to help prepare disadvantaged teens for work and life. They tried to cut after-school programs—proven winners—by 40 percent, then settled for a freeze.

Beyond the thousands of individual efforts necessary to save New Orleans and ease poverty lie some big political choices. Until Katrina intervened, the top priority for the GOP when Congress reconvened was permanent repeal of the estate tax, which applies to far less than 1 percent of taxpayers. (IRS figures show that only 1,607 wealthy people in Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi even pay the tax, out of more than 4 million taxpayers—one twenty-fifth of 1 percent.) Repeal would cost the government $24 billion a year. Meanwhile, House GOP leaders are set to slash food stamps by billions in order to protect subsidies to wealthy farmers. But Katrina could change the climate. The aftermath was not a good omen for the Grover Norquists of the world, who want to slash taxes more and shrink government to the size where it can be "strangled in the bathtub."

chief justice roberts

i agree that the concept of legal precedent is a "very important consideration." i don't think it's effective to fight roberts' confirmation. i think, also, if he's being honest, he's a conservative of a different stripe than either party expects or fears. he is the sort who won't rock the boat, who won't want to change things. in essence we'll have a static supreme court for the next thirty years. we'll have minor refinement and clarification, but few dramatic decisions. unless something extreme arises, i expect roberts to back congress and the president except where their actions explicitly conflict with the constitution. if he really values precedent, then he won't turn back the clock on anything. he also won't push things forward, either. i don't see roberts as a threat to anything but change. it's sandra day o'connor's replacement we have to watch.

all of this is drawn from third-hand knowledge, and reflects my own opinions of this possibly incomplete and distorted information. maybe i'm wrong, what do i know?

third-world disaster in 'the greatest nation on earth'

after the terrorist attacks in 2001, bush responded with a resolute swiftness. it was such a surprise for everyone that many of us admired his ability to take a stand, make quick decisions, and get things done. everyone was dazed and he took control. he got a lot of credit for that.

in new orleans they had many days to prepare. they knew the hurricane was coming. maybe they didn't understand the power it would have and the destruction it would cause, but they had to have some idea that it would be a disaster area afterwards. the government could have made some preparations for handling the aftermath. it could have put troops in place for immediate involvement in the region. it could have quickly drawn up a plan for evacuating people and keeping the peace in the subsequent chaos when supplies were low and services shut down.

instead, it took an iraq approach: let shit hit the fan then muddle through the aftermath.

here is an event that, while not avoidable, certainly could have been taken into consideration when drawing up disaster relief plans. plans for reacting to such things. what happens if terrorists discharge a dirty nuke in la or nyc, or even dc? no warning on that, so we'll excuse them a little for not having people ready to rush in afterwards, but would they still be as slow as they are now? it's clear to me they don't have any sort of rapid response team for natural disasters, even when they had a few days to prepare. what do they have for sudden emergencies?

i'll repeat myself here: what do bush and cheney and the administration have to gain from this tragedy. what do they have to gain from higher oil prices, and thus higher gas prices? what do they have to gain, personally, from all this? do you really think that's not a consideration? do you really think they wouldn't lie to us? do you really think they wouldn't invade a country to steal its oil? do you really think a president wouldn't let disaster strike so he can use it to bolster his reputation?

you probably think nixon wasn't involved in watergate, either.