Earlier in the week Roll Call (subscription required) reported that the Federal Elections Commissioned (FEC) was likely to fine some 527 groups involved in the 2004 campaign. Yesterday, the FEC fined three 527 groups, Swift Boat Veterans, the League of Conservation Voters and MoveOn.org’s Voter Fund, after determining that the organizations violated requirements to register as political committees. The groups registered with the IRS as 527s which bars them from express advocacy, but the FEC determined that their large donor funds set involvement in campaign activity as their major function. As covered in the New York Times; "The agency found that some of the groups’ activities crossed the line by soliciting donations and then spending the money with the express purpose of electing or defeating particular federal candidates." The Washington Post and USA Today also reported on this story. Perhaps to prevent further confusion, the FEC could make clear rules on the regulation of 527s. Blogs of differing campaign finance angles respond; Center for Competitive Politics a group critical of campaign finance regulation and the reform group Campaign Legal Center.

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has proposed that state associations send a larger portion of individual contributions to the NAR, in turn lowering the amount of money going to the state political action committee. In exchange, the NAR will give an equal amount of money from its treasury account to the state association. NAR had asked the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) whether this proposal would be permitted. Other similar groups are interested in ways to expand the ability to raise hard money.

The National Association of Realtors asked for an advisory opinion from the FEC (AO 2006-33) regarding a proposal to pay money directly from the corporate treasury of the national trade association to state associations affiliated with the national group. The payments would be made to encourage state associations' PACs to provide more hard money from individual members to the national realtors' PAC. The FEC draft concludes that the proposed arrangement would amount to a trade of corporate "soft money" for hard money and is prohibited.

BNA Money and Politics (subscription required) details this case while this blog entry from the Center for Competitive Politics disagrees with the FEC's decision.
Update: BNA Money and Politics reports that the FEC commissioners voted against the draft's conclusion. "Rejecting advice from the agency's staff attorneys, the Federal Election Commission voted 4-2 Dec. 14 to allow a national trade group to finance "hard money" fund-raising efforts by its state affiliates to benefit the national group's political action committee."