Interest groups spar with FEC

ASSOCIATED PRESS

A government agency has no power to impose limits on interest groups’ use of corporate or union money in this year’s election, and if it tried, it would violate their right to free speech, several organizations argued yesterday.

“We should not silence the noisy, contentious and necessary debate that makes up the public discourse,” Nan Aron, president of the Alliance of Justice, a coalition of interest groups, told the Federal Election Commission (FEC) at the start of a two-day hearing.

At issue is whether groups raising “soft money” — corporate, union and unlimited donations — should be banned from spending it in presidential and congressional races or should face new rules on how much soft money they can use.

The FEC’s decision, expected next month, could have a major impact on the fall elections.

Democratic-leaning groups, including the MoveOn.org Voter Fund and the Media Fund, are spending millions in soft money on ads opposing President Bush, chipping away at Mr. Bush’s multimillion-dollar advantage over presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry. Other partisan groups, mostly pro-Democratic, plan to use soft money on get-out-the-vote campaigns and other election efforts.

The Bush campaign has accused Democrats of forming a “shadow party” to use soft money for election activities that the Democratic Party no longer can pay for with significant donations. The pro-Democratic groups counter that their spending is legal.

Campaign law bars the national political parties and federal candidates from raising soft money and broadly bans its use to influence federal elections. The question is how far the law goes. The FEC is considering classifying soft-money groups that spend in federal elections as political committees, which would limit them to capped donations from individuals.

New rules need approval from at least four of the FEC’s six members and would face an immediate court challenge from interest groups. The commissioners seemed divided or undecided on the proposal yesterday.

Republican Commissioner Michael Toner argued that any new rules should take effect this year, “otherwise the commission will be effectively exempting the upcoming election from fundamental aspects of the law.”

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub said she thought the FEC was moving too quickly and shouldn’t change the rules during an election year.

“This rule-making was prompted by concerns about the activities of two or three organizations. We are now proposing to regulate thousands,” Miss Weintraub said.

Hundreds of groups — including the Sierra Club, NAACP, National Right to Life Committee and the National Education Association — argue that a cap would go beyond the law’s soft-money limits, free-speech rights and the commission’s authority.

“Even if the commission were empowered to do what it proposes, the rules themselves are fatally flawed in their overbreadth and vagueness,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawyer Jan Baran said in testimony echoed by AFL-CIO lawyer Laurence E. Gold.