I’ve been reading the latest silliness from the Bush campaign, essentially claiming that he’s against all 527’s. This position is so extreme, so radical that it’s gotten the condemnation of folks all over the political spectrum because it, in effect, would bar political speech (ads) by anyone that isn’t a political party with a candidate. You can read more from Instapundit, Atrios, and Kevin Drum.
The interesting thing to me, though, after looking at the various issues, is to think about how independent groups like MoveOn or other 527s. The argument for allowing something like 527’s is that they should represent the views of blocks of citizens who choose to pool their resources. They should be independent of a particular campaign (though I still haven’t figured out if that means they have to be independent of a party). We’ll ignore things like the Republicans for Clean Air for now.
The question that has been bouncing around my head today, though, is whether MoveOn would ever deviate from the direction of the Democratic party and, if they would, what issues could cause such a division? For all groups out there who want to participate in the political process, how independent of party can they be, especially when elections in this country are essentially 1 on 1? There’s also a question of whether it’s wrong that a 527 like MoveOn would find itself aligned with a particular party… I mean, what about groups like College Republican National Cmte? Are they ever going to run a issue ad against the Republican party?
one other random thought for tonight… If slavery were an issue today, abolitionists would probably have a 527 of their own. As we look back at their political affiliations, I would think that perhaps MoveOn and other broad 527’s (as opposed to, say, the Oregon Grocery Association) might follow the general ebb and flow of party focus… as abolitionists morphed into civil rights activists, they switched parties based on the focus of the two parties moved. Perhaps the long view is more encouraging.
Anyway, enough incoherent rambling from me… I’m tired and I need to get to bed.
August 24th, 2004 at 10:26 am
You pose a good thought. Should 527s align with the two party system or should the, in fact, create change? 527s have an ability far beyond the infancy of new parties… They can actually bring the “Independent” or “Third” parties to the national level and bring about the true ideal of a multi-party system. Issues should polarize candidates and campaigns. 527s have the ability to polorize issues and point to all national and local people from every party, including the smaller parties, and point the movement behind them. 527s are in the unique position to actually revolutionize the party building system by linking issues of prominence with members of any and every political party with people who believe in the cause… so in theory, 527s could actually be the reason we don’t have 1 on 1 campaigns (as you point out) in the future.
527s are not bad for the system. What is bad for the system (on both sides of the political spectrum) is the number of 527s that are involved with the candidate or their committee to cordinate and focus the attack with the individual running for office.
Now, reading the last statement, I expect people to scream and yell that 527s are nuetral. They are not. None of them. They act independently of the candidate in theory but in practice, THEY ALL are coordinating efforts with the candidates and parties… it’s called staying on task… and that is what is bad for the system. And it is more then slightly hypocritical of either candidate to call out any 527s for that.
August 30th, 2004 at 8:19 am
Interesting article on soft money and how 527s are the outlet for it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0804/chafets.html