described by the NY Sun:
At issue is a brief sequence in ONE's television ad showing simulated campaign buttons for 14 presidential hopefuls from both major parties. "Ask each presidential candidate if they're on the record fighting global poverty and disease," the ad's narrator intones. "One voice, plus yours and millions of others. They will hear."
Attorneys for the Campaign Legal Center suggest this ad falls under the disclosure provisions of BCRA, while Jim Joseph, the attorney who represents the ONE Campaign says it's purely an issue advertisement that doesn't support or oppose any candidate, and is therefore outside of the requirement's scope. When all is said and done, is this really the type of advertisement that the law was supposed to target? Is this a "sham issue ad"? It appears on its face to be precisely the type of ad that should not be regulated (and I put disclosure of donors in the "regulated" column). If the law does demand disclosure, I would suggest it's another indication of the problems with BCRA.
UPDATE... Jim Joseph on the election law listserv gave an update:
I am counsel to The ONE Campaign and certainly had my comments taken out of context in the NY Sun article. The reporter seemed to be questioning ONE about why it had not registered as a political committee, which led to my response explaining how The ONE Campaign is not a political committee and how its ads do not support or oppose any candidates. When I finally realized that what he really was talking about was filing the Form 9, I explained that ONE was filing the form within 24-hours of the FEC regulations becoming final on Dec. 26. ONE never raised funds for electioneering communications, but used general treasury funds for these ads. The regulations provide very clearly that donor names do not need to be included on Form 9 under these facts. The reporter's claim of ONE "boasting" of its ad buy was a simple press release stating that it was releasing an ad and buying $1.8 million in air time. The ads were set to end before December 26 and were paid for well before then, so there is probably an argument that the regulations that became effective on Dec. 26 did not apply, but I explained to the reporter that we wanted to file the form even if there might be argument that ONE was not required to file. We even filed before the FEC released a revised Form 9; the current form does not match up to the new regulations, that is for sure. Obviously, none of this comes out in the article. Given the "faux" issue ads that are out there, you would think the press would not be focusing on such non-issues as this.
Totally agreed on the last point!
No comments:
Post a Comment