Abstract

The Trouble With 527s

The author comments on calls by U.S. Republicans that the 527 soft-money organizations that have appeared in the wake of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law be banned. What should be done about 527s--those new organizations used primarily by Democrats (so far) to skirt the McCain-Feingold legislation passed in 2002? Republicans and Democrats have been tussling over this for months, with the GOPers ludicrously pretending to be the voice of reform and clean government. But what the fate of 527s should be is no easy question. First, some history. When Congress passed McCain-Feingold, advocates of true reform--as well as Democratic partisans--had reason to worry. With soft money zeroed out and hard-money limits raised, it wasn't too hard to foresee what McCain-Feingold would yield: Republicans raking in the hard money, and Democrats scrambling. Seeing the hard-money writing on the wall, Democratic activists in late 2002 began pulling together an assortment of groups unconnected to the party or any candidate. These 527 outfits (named after a provision in the tax code) could accept soft money and run the sort of ads previously produced by the Democratic Party--spots that would attack Bush and hail the attributes of the Democratic nominee without specifically recommending a vote for anyone. Naturally, Republicans complained. The GOP complaint was a move to score PR points and protect its financial advantage. The 527s are a problem, but not the only one in a system overrun and contaminated by big money. As much as members of Congress may hate to hear this, they need to get back to work on campaign finance reform.