Misplaced Pages

#248751

44-637: National Democratic Training Committee ( NDTC ) is a 527 political action committee formed in 2016 to train American Democratic party candidates at all levels of government to run for public office. NDTC was founded in 2016 by Democratic operative Kelly Dietrich. In 2018, the group launched online training for NGP VAN 's "VoteBuilder", the voter database used by the Democratic Party . In 2019, NDTC launched their Staff Academy program to provide training for Democratic campaign staff. NDTC trained

88-435: 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

132-413: A candidate nor make advertisement on a candidates behalf. Typical expenditures were described as being "party building" and get out the vote campaigns. Organizations, especially non-profits were supposed to do it on a nonpartisan basis. However, groups tended to focus efforts on signing up and getting the type of voters to the polls that were most likely to hold similar views. The only barrier stopping

176-559: 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

220-670: 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

264-498: 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

308-400: A communication to voters requires someone to decide. The only definitive answer comes from a judge and that takes time. Election commissions are not judges, but they can issue advisory opinion on the matter. That led to a concern that in federal elections, that officials at the Federal Election Commission and state-level commissions would have to do work. Anyone cautious, wanting to make sure

352-621: A congressional investigation. It reinvigorated campaign finance reform, and led to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002, which is more commonly known as McCain-Feingold. In 2003, in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission , the Court detailed the difference between interest versus express advocacy. It ruled looking for "magic words" as "functionally meaningless" since an advertiser can communicate its intention to voters without them. Therefore, instead of looking for words,

396-463: A group from campaigning directly for their favorite candidate or cause was something called the "reasonable person" test: if a reasonable person, viewing the communication, comes to the conclusion the sponsor wants them to vote in one way, it is express advocacy, not interest advocacy. One problem with the reasonable person test is it is not definitive or a bright-line rule . There was no clear line that clearly stated if you cross this point you are on

440-466: A group of 60 new Democratic campaign staff through an eight-week training, which featured both in-person and online components. NDTC partnered with state and national party committees to recruit trainees for the program, which saw more than 600 applicants. The program was developed to provide Democratic campaigns with "high-quality, diverse, and trained staff members" for the 2020 election cycle . According to its FEC report, NDTC raised $ 7.35 million during

484-474: 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

SECTION 10

#1732884725249

528-471: 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

572-461: 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

616-644: A specific action at the election booth. Identification of a pure "issue only ads" made by interest advocacy groups is difficult. Groups that sponsored messages needed to make it clear, to a voter with reasonable intelligence , that the voter should cast their ballot in a manner the group wanted. Keeping an advertisement issue important to only groups like 501(c)(3) non-profits. They were subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities. Organizations can participate in nonpartisan voter education efforts, including registration and "get-out-the-vote" drives and issue advocacy. Express advocacy

660-559: A subsequent case affected certain spending limitations, it did not permit those making the spending from evading disclosure requirements by claiming they were performing issue advocacy. Also in 2010 in a case known as Doe v. Reed , the Supreme Court rejected an appeal to keep signatures upon a referendum from voters, based upon a claim it violated the First Amendment . Lower courts are already applying these new standards to uphold

704-513: 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

748-646: Is a decent man who earned his education in the field and stands up for worker rights. Mary Jones received her undergraduate degree at Yale, and a law degree at Northwestern. She advocates eating vegetables. How do you feel about that? Although the ad might influence potential voters for or against one of the candidates, it does not specifically advocate action to elect a candidate for office. As such, it falls outside of laws that restrict political speech intended to influence elections. These type of ads became known colloquially as "issue ads". However, rather than using them as examples, many found it easier to just leave out

792-470: 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 . Issue advocacy ads The bright-line test doesn't cover forms of communication that are indirect or debatable. Consider this message to voters: In a communication like this, there

836-529: Is clear. Using a standard that looks for specific words or phrases in a communication is called conducting a bright-line test. Bright-line is a standard if there is no mistake. One or more of the " Eight Magic Words " or their equivalents is present or not present. Express advocacy is associated with independent expenditures . In the 1970s, changes to regulations permitted non-candidate organizations to make independent expenditures and use their money in election season. They could neither give it directly to

880-449: Is largely used in connection with a debate in the US regarding when issue advocacy turns into campaigning . Many groups that made what appeared to most to be campaign advertisements claimed that their communications to voters were really issue advocacy and not express advocacy. To help understand the difference, examine these two communications to voters: In both examples the message's intention

924-407: Is no mention about voting, however, the plain intention is to cast doubt on voters that supported candidate X. Campaigning like this is typically called negative campaigning , making attack ads, or making thinly veiled promotional ads on the behalf of the candidate. Interest advocacy is the act of making generalized communication regarding a public issue or problem without advocating voters to take

SECTION 20

#1732884725249

968-635: The 2018 United States elections , including three Congressional candidates. The group has been generally welcomed by state Democratic parties, with former head of the North Dakota Democratic Party Kylie Oversen stating the group has helped state parties encourage potential candidates to run for office. The Washington Post said that some Democrats have called the group's primary fundraising consultant, Mothership Strategies, "unethical," because of its "aggressive and sometimes misleading tactics," such as claiming that President Trump

1012-465: The 2018 election cycle . The training has taken the form of on-site as well as online classes with students ranging from activists, campaign volunteers and staff, and candidates. The group partners with state Democratic parties, as well as similar groups like Run for Something and EMILY's List . NDTC trainings cover topics like communications , campaign finance , and canvassing . The group claims its trainings helped elect more than 170 Democrats in

1056-495: 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 ,

1100-567: 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

1144-410: The "magic words" and claim their communications to voters were fine. By 1996, interest advocacy groups were spending millions of dollars on campaigns claiming their advertisements were "issue only" since they left out the "magic words." By 2000, voters were inundated with $ 500 million worth of this type of advertisement. Owing to the "shame issue ads," scandals, and the amount of spending, Congress held

1188-500: The Court again ruled that if a communication to voters had "no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for, or against, a specific candidate," it is "the functional equivalent of express advocacy." In the 2004 United States presidential election , "issue only" ads continued and some famous ones were made by a group called Swift Boat . They claimed their advertisements were issue only ads, not express advocacy. According to at least one analyst, voters voted exactly how

1232-560: 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

1276-597: The US Supreme Court in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ruled that issue ads may not be banned from the months preceding a primary or general election. The test to tell the difference between interest and express advocacy remained the reasonable person test. However, that is said to have created a difficulty. A test that requires someone to consider how a reasonable person views

1320-466: 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

1364-530: The communication to voters, was interest and not express advocacy would contact it for an opinion. Communications to voters covers a wide range of areas including advertisements, e-mails, signs, and even speeches on the pulpit might want to ask someone. To resolve this issue, the US Supreme Court looked back at a prior ruling. In 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo , the Supreme Court held that one thing of key importance

National Democratic Training Committee - Misplaced Pages Continue

1408-418: 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

1452-621: The future. 527 organization 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 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

1496-465: 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

1540-475: 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

1584-534: 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

1628-403: 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

1672-550: The sponsors intended and the advertisements "torpedoed" Massachusetts Democrat John Kerry presidential campaign, 2004 . Additionally, a political action committee Progress of America , ran an advertisement that showed the horrors of terrorism and stated that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda want to kill American citizens. At the end, it asked, "Would you trust Kerry against these killers?" "George Bush did not start this War, but he will end it." The "magic words" are missing. In 2007,

1716-411: 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 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

1760-619: The types of things that would lead a reasonable person to conclude the speaker was advocating a particular candidate or ballot measure. The Court felt that limiting campaign finance laws to speech with such express advocacy was necessary to avoid a "chilling effect" on speech about political officeholders and issues that was protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. As a hypothetical example, suppose someone placed an advertisement that went something like this: John Smith

1804-585: The wrong side. In Buckley v. Valeo , decided in January 1976, the United States Supreme Court limited the reach of campaign finance laws to candidate and party committees, and other committees with a major purpose of electing candidates, or to speech that "expressly advocated" election or defeat of candidates. In footnote 52 of that opinion, the Court listed eight words or phrases as illustrative of speech that qualified as "express advocacy". A footnote

National Democratic Training Committee - Misplaced Pages Continue

1848-465: Was included in a US Supreme Court ruling providing eight examples. Under the Buckley ruling, speakers that did not invoke any of the eight specific words and phrases of Buckley , or similar language expressly calling voters to vote for or against a candidate, were exempt from campaign finance laws. The eight words and phrases appearing in Buckley were That footnote was intended to provide examples of

1892-454: Was preparing to fire the special counsel. Mothership charges some clients a commission of 15 percent, higher than the industry standard of 7 to 10 percent. Their fundraising tactics are effective, in raising large amounts of money, but the Democratic critics of Mothership Strategies worry that the company’s profits are built on exaggerating fears, and could erode trust among small donors needed in

1936-478: Was protecting free speech. In 2010, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission determined, among other things, that it would be basically not possible for the federal government to be in the business of determining what does and does not constitute issue advocacy or express advocacy. In 2010, Citizens United "expressly rejected the contention that election-law disclosure requirements are limited to express advocacy or its functional equivalent." While it and

#248751