Dear List manager kan you please subscribe mr khan at [log in to unmask]

Thank you

For Freedom
Saiks



>From: Ylva Hernlund <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Gambia and related-issues mailing list
><[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal (fwd)
>Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:56:22 -0800
>
>Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:05:15 -0800
>From: "Wes Boyd, MoveOn.org" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Ylva Hernlund <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Attempt to make criticism of Bush illegal
>
>Dear MoveOn member,
>
>Are you involved in a local or national non-profit or public interest
>organization?  As a leader or board director or member?  Please read this
>message carefully, because your organization could be facing a serious
>threat.
>
>The Republican National Committee is pressing the Federal Election
>Commission ("FEC") to issue new rules that would shut down groups that dare
>to communicate with the public in any way critical of President Bush or
>members of Congress.  Incredibly, the FEC has just issued -- for public
>comment -- proposed rules that would do just that.  Any kind of non-profit
>-- conservative, progressive, labor, religious, secular, social service,
>charitable, educational, civic participation, issue-oriented, large, and
>small -- could be affected by these rules.
>
>Operatives in Washington are displaying a terrifying disregard for the
>values of free speech and openness which underlie our democracy.
>Essentially, they are willing to pay any price to stop criticism of Bush
>administration policy.
>
>We've attached materials below to help you make a public comment to the FEC
>before the comment period ends on APRIL 9th.  Your comment could be very
>important, because normally the FEC doesn't get much public feedback.
>
>Public comments to the FEC are encouraged by email at
>
>    [log in to unmask]
>
>Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General
>Counsel, and must include the full name, electronic mail address, and
>postal service address of the commenter.
>
>More details can be found at:
>
>    http://www.fec.gov/press/press2004/20040312rulemaking.html
>
>We'd love to see a copy of your public comment.  Please email us a copy at
>[log in to unmask]
>
>By the way, the FEC’s proposed rules do not affect the donations you may
>have made in the past or may make now to MoveOn.org or to the MoveOn.org
>Voter Fund.  They are aimed at activist non-profit groups, not donors.
>
>Whether or not you're with a non-profit, we also suggest you ask your
>representatives to write a letter to the FEC opposing the rule change.
>
>Some key points:
>
>- Campaign finance reform was not meant to gag public interest
>organizations.
>- Political operatives are trying to silence opposition to Bush policy.
>- The Federal Election Commission has no legal right to treat non-profit
>interest groups as political committees.  Congress and the courts have
>specifically considered and rejected such regulation.
>
>You can reach your representatives at:
>
>   Senator Patty Murray
>   Phone: 202-224-2621
>
>   Senator Maria Cantwell
>   Phone: 202-224-3441
>
>   Congressman Jim McDermott
>   Phone: 202-225-3106
>
>Please let us know you're calling, at:
>
>http://www.moveon.org/callmade.html?id=2540-1139123-AOO836sRDgZD7TqZtAQvwQ
>
>In a non-election year, this kind of administrative overreach would never
>find support.  It goes far beyond any existing law or precedent. It is a
>serious threat to the fundamental checks and balances in our system.  But
>because of an unholy alliance between a few campaign reform groups and GOP
>partisans, this rule change could actually happen if we don't act now.
>
>I've attached more details below, prepared by our attorneys and by the FEC
>Working Group -- a group of more than 500 respected non-profit
>organizations.
>
>If you run a non-profit, don't assume this change doesn't apply to you.
>First check out the EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS
>section below.  It's outrageous.
>
>Thanks for all you do,
>
>-Wes Boyd
>  MoveOn.org
>  March 30, 2004
>
>________________
>
>
>EXAMPLES OF SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES FOR NONPROFIT GROUPS
>
>Under the proposed rules, nonprofit organizations that advocate for cancer
>research, gun and abortion restrictions or rights, fiscal discipline, tax
>reform, poverty issues, immigration reform, the environment, or civil
>rights or liberties - all these organizations could be transformed into
>political committees if they criticize or commend members of Congress or
>the President based on their official actions or policy positions.
>
>Such changes would cripple the ability of groups to raise and spend funds
>in pursuit of their mission and could be so ruinous that organizations
>would be forced to back away from meaningful conversations about public
>policies that affect millions of Americans.
>
>If the proposed rules were adopted, the following organizations would be
>treated as federal political committees and therefore could not receive
>grants from any corporation, even an incorporated nonprofit foundation,
>from any union, or from any individual in excess of $5,000 per year:
>
>- A 501(c)(4) gun rights organization that spends $50,000 on ads at any
>time during this election year criticizing any legislator, who also happens
>to be a federal candidate, for his or her position on gun control measures.
>
>- A "good government" organization [§501(c)(3)] that spends more than
>$50,000 to research and publish a report criticizing several members of the
>House of Representatives for taking an all-expense trip to the Bahamas as
>guests of the hotel industry.
>
>- A fund [§527] created by a tax reform organization to provide information
>to the public regarding federal candidates' voting records on budget
>issues.
>
>- A civil rights organization [§501(c)(3) or §501(c)(4)] that spends more
>than $50,000 to conduct non-partisan voter registration activities in
>Hispanic and African-American communities after July 5, 2004.
>
>- An organization devoted to the environment that spends more than $50,000
>on communications opposing oil drilling in the Arctic and identifying
>specific Members of Congress as supporters of the legislation, if those
>Members are running for re-election.
>
>- A civic organization [§501(c)(6)] that spends $50,000 during 2004 to send
>letters to all registered voters in the community urging them to vote on
>November 2, 2004 because "it is your civic duty."
>
>Other potential ramifications include the following situations:
>
>- A religious organization that publishes an election-year legislative
>report card covering all members of Congress on a broad range of issues
>would be unable to accept more than $5,000 from any individual donor if the
>report indicated whether specific votes were good or bad.
>
>- A 501(c)(3) organization that primarily encourages voter registration and
>voting among young people will be required to re-create itself as a federal
>PAC.
>
>- A 501(c)(4) pro-life group that accepts contributions from local
>businesses would break the law by using its general funds to pay for any
>communications critical of an incumbent Senator's position on abortion
>rights after the Senator had officially declared himself for reelection
>more than a year before the next election.
>
>- A 501(c)(3) civil rights group that has been designated as a political
>committee can no longer hold its annual fundraiser at a corporate-donated
>facility, and it must refuse donations or grants from donors that have
>already given $5,000 for that year.
>
>BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGES
>
>Under federal campaign finance laws, federal "political committees" must
>register and file reports with the FEC and can accept contributions only
>from individual persons (and other federal committees), and only up to
>$5,000 per year from any one donor ("hard money").  The FEC is now
>proposing to redefine "political committee" to include any group that:
>
>1.  Spends more than $1,000 this year on nonpartisan voter registration or
>get out the vote activity or on any ad, mailing or phone bank that
>"promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any federal candidate; and
>
>2.  Supposedly has a "major purpose" of election of a federal candidate as
>shown by:
>    (a) Saying anything in its press releases, materials, website, etc.
>that might lead regulators to conclude that the group’s "major purpose" is
>to influence the election of any federal candidate; or
>    (b) Spending more than $50,000 this year or in any of the last 4 years
>for any nonpartisan voter registration or get out the vote program, or on
>any public communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" any
>federal candidate.
>
>What’s more, any group that gets turned into a federal "political
>committee" under these new rules has to shut down all its communications
>critical of President Bush (or any other federal candidate) until it sets
>up "federal" and "non-federal" accounts; and raises enough hard money
>contributions to "repay" the federal account for the amounts spent on all
>those communications since the beginning of 2003.
>
>These proposed rules would apply to all types of groups: 501(c)(3)
>charitable  organizations, 501(c)(4) advocacy organizations, labor unions,
>trade associations and non-federal political committees and organizations
>(so-called "527" groups, as well as state PACs, local political clubs,
>etc.).
>
>The new rules, including those that apply to voter engagement, cover all
>types of communications -- not just broadcast TV or radio ads -- but
>messages in any form, such as print ads, mailings, phone banks, email
>alerts like this one, websites, leaflets, speeches, posters, tabling, even
>knocking on doors.
>
>The FEC will hold a public hearing on April 14 & 15.  Written comments are
>due by April 5 if the group wants to testify at that hearing; otherwise, by
>April 9.  The FEC plans to make its final decision on these proposed rules
>by mid-May and they could go into effect as early as July, right in the
>middle of the election year, potentially retroactive to January 2003.
>
>It’s clear that these rules would immediately silence thousands of groups,
>of all types, who have raised questions and criticisms of any kind about
>the Bush Administration, its record and its policies.
>
>SOME TALKING POINTS
>
>- The FEC should not change the rules for nonprofit advocacy in the middle
>of an election year, especially in ways that Congress already considered
>and rejected. Implementing these changes now would go far beyond what
>Congress decided and the Supreme Court upheld.
>
>- These rules would shut down the legitimate activities of nonprofit
>organizations of all kinds that the FEC has no authority at all to
>regulate.
>
>- Nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform law or the Supreme Court’s
>decision upholding it provides any basis for these rules.  That law is only
>about banning federal candidates from using unregulated contributions
>("soft money"), and banning political parties from doing so, because of
>their close relationship to those candidates.  It’s clear that, with one
>exception relating to running broadcast ads close to an election, the new
>law wasn’t supposed to change what independent nonprofit interest groups
>can do, including political organizations (527’s) that have never before
>been subject to regulation by the FEC.
>
>- The FEC can’t fix the problems with these proposed rules just by imposing
>new burdens on section 527 groups.  They do important issue education and
>advocacy as well as voter mobilization.  And Congress clearly decided to
>require those groups to fully and publicly disclose their finances, through
>the IRS and state agencies, not to restrict their independent activities
>and speech.  The FEC has no authority to go further.
>
>- In the McConnell opinion upholding McCain-Feingold, the U.S. Supreme
>Court clearly stated that the law's limits on unregulated corporate, union
>and large individual contributions apply to political parties and not
>interest groups. Congress specifically considered regulating 527
>organization three times in the last several years - twice through the
>Internal Revenue Code and once during the BCRA debate - and did not subject
>them to McCain-Feingold.
>
>- The FEC should not, in a few weeks, tear up the fabric of tax-exempt law
>that has existed for decades and under which thousands of nonprofit groups
>have structured their activities and their governance.  The Internal
>Revenue Code already prohibits 501(c)(3) charities from intervening in
>political candidate campaigns, and IRS rules for other 501(c) groups
>prohibit them from ever having a primary purpose to influence any candidate
>elections -- federal, state, or local.
>
>- As an example of how seriously the new FEC rules contradict the IRS
>political and lobbying rules for nonprofits, consider this:  Under the 1976
>public charity lobbying law, a 501(c)(3) group with a $1.5 million annual
>budget can spend $56,250 on grassroots lobbying, including criticism of a
>federal incumbent candidate in the course of lobbying on a specific bill.
>That same action under the new FEC rules would cause the charity to be
>regulated as a federal political committee, with devastating impact on its
>finances and perhaps even loss of its tax-exempt status.
>
>- The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be
>overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's policies
>could turn a nonprofit group OVERNIGHT into a federally regulated political
>committee with crippling fund-raising restrictions.
>
>- Under the most draconian proposal, the FEC would "look back" at a
>nonprofit group's activities over the past four years - before
>McCain-Feingold was ever passed and the FEC ever proposed these rules - to
>determine whether a group's activities qualify it as a federal political
>committee. If so, the FEC would require a group to raise hard money to
>repay prior expenses that are now subject to the new rules. Further work
>would be halted until debts to the "old" organization were repaid. This
>rule would jeopardize the survival of many groups.
>
>- The 4 year "look back" rule would cause a nonprofit group that criticized
>or praised the policies of Bush, Cheney, McCain, or Gore in 2000, or any
>Congressional incumbent candidate in 2000 or 2002, to be classified as a
>political committee now, even though the group has not done so since then.
>This severely violates our constitutional guarantees of due process.
>
>- These changes would impoverish political debate and could act as a de
>facto "gag rule" on public policy advocacy. They would insulate public
>officials from substantive criticism for their positions on policy issues.
>They would actually diminish civic participation in government rather than
>strengthen it. This would be exactly the opposite result intended by most
>supporters of campaign finance reform.
>
>- The FEC's proposed rule changes would dramatically impair vigorous debate
>about important national issues. It would hurt nonprofit groups across the
>political spectrum and restrict First Amendment freedoms in ways that are
>unhealthy for our democracy.
>
>- Any kind of nonprofit -- conservative, liberal, labor, religious,
>secular, social service, charitable, educational, civic participation,
>issue-oriented, large, and small -- could be affected by these rules. A
>vast number would be essentially silenced on the issues that define them,
>whether they are organized as 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), or 527 organizations.
>
>- Already, more than five hundred nonprofit organizations - including many
>that supported McCain-Feingold like ourselves - have voiced their
>opposition to the FEC's efforts to restrict advocacy in the name of
>campaign finance reform.
>
>FOR MORE INFORMATION
>
>Resources on FEC Proposed Rule Changes Threatening Nonprofit Advocacy
>Prepared by the FEC Working Group
>http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oId=14670
>
>From two prominent reform organizations:
>
>Soft Money and the FEC
>Common Cause
>http://www.commoncause.org/news/default.cfm?ArtID=282
>
>Public Campaign Statement regarding FEC Draft Advisory Opinion 2003-37
>Public Campaign
>http://www.publiccampaign.org/pressroom/pressreleases/release2004/statement02-17-04.htm
>
>_______________
>
>This is a message from MoveOn.org.  To unsubscribe from this list,
>please visit our subscription management page at:
>http://moveon.org/s?i=2540-1139123-AOO836sRDgZD7TqZtAQvwQ
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to:
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
>To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
>[log in to unmask]
>
>To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
>Web interface
>at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Search in the Gambia-L archives, go to: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/CGI/wa.exe?S1=gambia-l
To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to:
[log in to unmask]

To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface
at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~