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