OMB Watch Testimony in 2004 FEC Rulemaking on 527s - Lobbying and Speech Rights

Lobbying and Speech Rights: News Background Analysis Correspondence Blog

Published: 04/16/2004

Printable Version
Email to a Friend

OMB Watch Testimony in 2004 FEC Rulemaking on 527s

On April 15, 2004 Kay Guinane of OMB Watch testified at the Federal Election Commission's public hearing on proposed rules extending FEC regulation. The testimony is below. More information on this issue is available at nonprofitadvocacy.org.

FEC Testimony- Kay Guinane, OMB Watch
April 15, 2004

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Commission today. OMB Watch strongly supports campaign finance reform AND protection of nonpartisan issue advocacy and voter education and mobilization efforts. These should not be inconsistent public policy goals, but the proposed rule has created unnecessary clash between them.

This can be avoided if the FEC defers this rulemaking until after the election and comes at these issues from another angle- which should be the potential for corruption that independent groups present. There can be no sensible or constitutional resolution of these issues without first looking at the factors that separate groups that threaten to corrupt the political system from groups that do not.

Tax-exempt categories are not particularly helpful for this purpose. There are other ways to slice and dice the universe of independent groups. Factors to consider include:

Breadth of public support
Membership and governance
Public interest mission

There are many more possible approaches than those suggested in the proposed rule. For example, should some groups be subject to a less restrictive level of regulation than others? Is there a zone of activity between MCFL groups and political parties that should be defined and recognized? Congress should be involved in this discussion and in any changes that are made.

Yesterday I had the opportunity spend the day with representatives of nonprofit community based social service agencies in South Carolina. They wanted training on the legal rules for nonpartisan voter education and mobilization activity because they want decision makers to be responsive to the needs of low income households.

These groups are not trying to influence WHO gets elected. They cannot afford lawyers to guide them through a labyrinth of FEC rules or seek Advisory Opinions. They are trying to give their community a voice in public policy debates. They know whoever is in office will not pay attention to their concerns if their communities do not turn out the vote. The point for them is to show up for the democratic process and make it work for them.

Their discussion was rooted in the history of the struggle for equal voting rights in America. Because they are small and cash strapped and cannot afford to operate independent voter education projects, they are pooling their resources, finding partners in their communities and working together to become more involved, well into 2005. This could easily bring them within the restrictions of FEC regulation if the proposed rule is adopted.

The South Carolina groups noted that the Help America Vote Act is changing the way American votes, and want to make sure their communities are informed and ready for these changes.

These are the kinds of groups and activities that should not be limited in the way political parties and campaigns are. At the end of the day, one participant came up to me and asked me to relay this message to you: We are not the problem!