35-521: The Media Fund is a 527 group , active in U.S. politics , which supported Democrat John Kerry 's campaign for President . It was formed in 2002, and is led by Harold M. Ickes , a former aide to President Bill Clinton . Its chief fundraiser is Ellen Malcolm , a former fundraiser for EMILY's List . Billionaire George Soros was among the largest donors to the Fund. According to the New York Times ,
70-409: A 5-4 majority, upheld the key provisions of McCain-Feingold including (1) the "electioneering communication" provisions (which required disclosure of and prohibited the use of corporate and union treasury funds to pay for or broadcast cable and satellite ads clearly identifying a federal candidate targeted to the candidate's electorate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election); and (2)
105-435: A 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink , Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue . A total of $ 415,784,148 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 214,580,543 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups and $ 201,203,605 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups. Some of these listings identify
140-559: A candidate's character and fitness for office off limits to 527s specifically. In Carey et al. v. FEC – RADM James J. Carey, USN (ret), chairman of the National Defense PAC, along with the PAC and a prospective donor, brought suit after the FEC deadlocked on a 2010 Advisory Opinion Request (see AO 2010-20), in which the PAC sought permission to operate both an independent expenditure PAC and
175-670: A candidate, regardless of whether or not they contained "express advocacy". The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this provision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission . Based on that decision, many persons urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to use its regulatory power to extend campaign finance laws to cover these groups. The Commission held hearings in April 2004 to determine whether or not 527s should be regulated under campaign finance rules, but concluded that
210-498: A candidate. Thus, organizations could run ads discussing candidates and issues without being subject to campaign finance restrictions, so long as they avoided such express advocacy. The McCain-Feingold law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, extended certain campaign finance limitations to broadcast advertisements run within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election if they mentioned
245-418: A multi-year effort by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold to reform the way money is raised and spent on political campaigns culminated in the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the so-called McCain-Feingold bill). Its key provisions were 1) a ban on unrestricted ("soft money") donations made directly to political parties (often by corporations, unions, or wealthy individuals) and on
280-474: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink . A total of $ 303,309,245 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 178,397,267 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 117,112,322 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. Some of these listings identify
315-471: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink . A total of $ 439,709,105 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 307,324,096 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 132,385,009 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. *Joint Victory Campaign 2004
350-461: A parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Democratic/liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue, Republican/conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink. A total of $ 171,045,165 was spent by these organizations alone, $ 121,665,587 of which was spent by Democratic/liberal groups and $ 49,379,578 of which was spent by Republican/conservative groups. Some of these listings identify
385-569: A traditional PAC that could make contributions to candidates and was subject to fundraising restrictions. Carey's victory in the court now allows organizations to operate both traditional and "Super" PACs. A February 2010 poll from the Pew Research Center found that 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to make expenditures on behalf of candidates during elections. Seventeen percent approve of
SECTION 10
#1732858935170420-525: Is a joint fund-raising committee run by America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Money raised by JVC is divided between these two beneficiaries. Combining receipts for these three groups would result in double-counting . McConnell v. Federal Election Commission McConnell v. Federal Election Commission , 540 U.S. 93 (2003), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld
455-556: Is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination , election , appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees (PACs), " Super PACs ", and political parties are "527s". However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for
490-567: The Progress for America Voter Fund , and the Secretary of State Project . Internal Revenue Code section 527 was enacted as part of Public Law No. 93-625 on January 3, 1975. In the case of Buckley v. Valeo , the U.S. Supreme Court attempted to draw a limit on the extent to which campaign finance laws could regulate speech about politics. The Court's answer was that campaign finance laws could reach only party and candidate committees, organizations with
525-529: The constitutionality of most of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), often referred to as the McCain – Feingold Act. The case takes its name from Senator Mitch McConnell , Republican of Kentucky , and the Federal Election Commission , the federal agency that oversees U.S. campaign finance laws. It was partially overruled by Citizens United v. FEC , 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The case
560-419: The "soft money" ban (which prohibited federal parties, candidates, and officeholders from raising or spending funds not in compliance with contribution restrictions, and prohibited state parties from using such "soft money" in connection with federal elections). Justices John Paul Stevens , Sandra Day O'Connor , David Souter , Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer established the majority for two parts of
595-496: The $ 5,000 cap. According to a spokesperson, Media Fund did not admit to any wrongdoing in its settlement. This article related to the politics of the United States is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . 527 group A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C. § 527 ). A 527 group
630-580: The Constitution. The Court found that the law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for state and local elections. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote an opinion on titles III and IV of the BCRA, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Anthony Kennedy , Antonin Scalia , and by the other justices with respect to parts of
665-492: The Court found that such regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits. The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I, Section 4 of
700-407: The Court's opinion: Because the regulations dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found that the restriction was justified by
735-520: The District of Columbia ruled three sections of the challenged provisions unconstitutional, and upheld two other sections. The District Court's ruling was stayed during the appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a special session on September 8, 2003. On December 10, 2003, it issued a complicated decision totaling 272 pages in length, that, with
SECTION 20
#1732858935170770-560: The Federal Elections Commission of illegal coordination between the groups and rival political campaigns. These formal complaints included: In 2006 and 2007 the FEC fined a number of organizations, including MoveOn and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, for violations arising from the 2004 campaign. The FEC's rationale was that these groups had specifically advocated the election or defeat of candidates, thus making them subject to federal regulation and its limits on contributions to
805-454: The Media Fund raised $ 45 million to run issue ads in key swing states . The Media Fund is one of several 527 groups which supported Kerry; others include America Coming Together and MoveOn.org . After the election, the group experienced a dramatic drop in fundraising success; media reports speculated that major donors had given up on the organization, and were turning their attention to other, more long-term Democratic projects. The group
840-466: The candidate. Although 527 organizations were in common use by the 1990s, in the wake of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act , which limited the ability of political parties to raise money, 527s rose to much greater prominence and visibility. Swift Boat was one such group, which ran controversial and highly effective ads critical of the 2004 Democratic Party candidate, John Kerry . A reported $ 9.45 million came from just 3 private individuals. On
875-737: The election or defeat of a candidate or party. There are no upper limits on contributions to 527s and no restrictions on who may contribute. There are no spending limits imposed on these organizations. The organizations must register with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), publicly disclose their donors and file periodic reports of contributions and expenditures. Because they may not expressly advocate for specific candidates or coordinate with any candidate's campaign, many 527s are used to raise money to spend on issue advocacy and voter mobilization. Examples of 527s are Swift Boat Veterans for Truth , The Media Fund , America Coming Together ,
910-418: The expenditures, and 15 percent of respondents said they were unsure. An October 2010 Bloomberg poll found that 47 percent of Americans say they would be less likely to support a political candidate if his campaign was supported by advertising paid for by anonymous business groups. According to the pollster, 41 percent said that it would not matter, and 9 percent said they would be more likely to back
945-401: The government's legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption " that might result from those contributions. In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by corporations or unions),
980-465: The law did not cover these independent 527 organizations unless they directly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate or engaged in broadcast advertising mentioning within the 30- and 60-day windows specified by Congress in the McCain-Feingold law. Nevertheless, Federal Election Commission rulings after the 2004 election attempted to extend the reach of the law to advertisements which questioned
1015-475: The liberal side, contributor George Soros contributed $ 23.7 million to 527s, and Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance contributed another $ 23.2 million to 527s in 2004. Prominent 527s that supported Democrats included America Coming Together , MoveOn.org, and the Media Fund. Under federal election law, coordination between an election campaign and a 527 group is not allowed. The heavy spending of key 527 groups to attack presidential candidates brought complaints to
1050-534: The major purpose of electing candidates, or speech that "expressly advocated" the election or defeat of candidates. The determination of whether a group had the major purpose of electing candidates depended, in turn, on whether "express advocacy" was the group's primary activity. In footnote 6 of the Buckley opinion, the Court limited "express advocacy" to words and phrases such as "Smith for Congress", "elect", "defeat", or other specific calls for action to vote for or against
1085-452: The opinion. The Chief Justice's opinion struck down the provision banning political contributions by minors but ruled that the appellants lacked standing with regard to the rest of the challenges to titles III and IV. Two dissenting opinions were included in the decision: Three other justices wrote separate opinions on the decision: The holding of the case was determined to be very confusing, although many news sources accurately summarized
Media Fund - Misplaced Pages Continue
1120-403: The organizations. Some of these listings identify a parent organization that has created a 527 group but that also engages in many nonpolitical activities. Republican / conservative leaning groups are highlighted in pink , Democratic / liberal leaning groups are highlighted in blue , neutral groups are not highlighted. Some of these listings identify a parent organization that has created
1155-500: The solicitation of those donations by elected officials; 2) limits on the advertising that unions, corporations, and non-profit organizations can engage in up to 60 days prior to an election; and 3) restrictions on political parties' use of their funds for advertising on behalf of candidates (in the form of "issue ads" or "coordinated expenditures"). In May 2003, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for
1190-678: Was brought by groups such as the California Democratic Party and the National Rifle Association , and individuals including U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell, then the Senate Majority Whip , who argued that BCRA was an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment rights. McConnell had been a longtime opponent of BCRA in the Senate, and had led several Senate filibusters to block its passage. In early 2002,
1225-604: Was fined by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 2007. The $ 580,000 fine—the seventh highest the FEC had levied—resulted from a settlement between the fund and the regulator. Groups including the Republican National Committee and Bush's reelection team had complained to the FEC about election law violations. The FEC found that the Media Fund had improperly accepted contributions from unions and corporations as well as contributions from individuals over
#169830