The Edwards campaign is in a battle with the FEC, who are trying to claim that online donations made via ActBlue constitute PAC money and therefore not eligible for matching funds. Since ActBlue allows for direct donations to candidates and does not allow them to influence where or how those funds are used, the Edwards campaign has a very strong argument.
Obviously, while ActBlue is a "political committee" in the strictest sense of the term, in reality it does not act as such. ActBlue is a conduit for individual contributor preferences, to track and aggregate small-dollar contributors. It asserts no control over the recipients of its funds; the site’s only criteria is that the recipient be a Democrat. It fulfills FECA’s anticorruption goals by reporting contributors’ names, addresses, employers, and occupations to campaign, which in turn provide that information to the Commission as is legally required.
[]
There is no conceivable purpose for campaign finance law that would be served by treating the ActBlue contributions as not-matchable under the law, as ActBlue presents none of the concerns articulated by the groups otherwise covered by 11 CFR 9034.3(f), and for these purposes is more akin to a credit card processor than any other entity. This is technology being used to encourage small-dollar contributions which are at the heart of reforming our campaign system, and to treat it as "dirty money" seems ludicrous. Nothing distinguishes these from any other small-dollar contributions other than the website through which they were sent. The Commission should reject the draft opinion and allow the Edwards campaign to seek matching funds for contributions transmitted by ActBlue.
It’s an important battle that stretches beyond the Edwards campaign and has tremendous impact on the ability of small donors to come together online and counterbalance the moneyed interests whose contributions often come with a hefty pricetag.
You can send comments to the FEC via the Edwards website, write an email to FEC Commission Secretary Mary Dove directly at mdove@fec.gov, or sign a letter from the Public Campaign in support. Deadline is noon eastern time today.
Related posts:
- Hamsher on Maddow: Dear Arkansas Dems – Support Public Option or Be Primaried
- Over Half of Blue Dogs’ 2009 Campaign Contributions from Health Care Industry
- Dear Trade Associations, Why do You Despise the Workers?
- Larry Summers Aide Luring Veal Pen with Donor Cash at Common Purpose Meeting
- Dear Rahm: You Break It, You Buy It





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Another way to keep the small donor, well — small.
Signed
Edwards! Jane!
ditto
It’s not corporate money, so it must be dirty money.
Dead!
http://freewayblogger.blogspot…..-dead.html
2,011 signs on freeways since Jan. 1
This is really odd, as unlike other PAC’s, or even contributions from other campaigns, the sources of who made the contribution is transparent at ActBlue…and the campaign can thus constrain the amounts coming in from a particular donor.
The other PAC’s, the Party Committees and other Politicians campaigns can receive cash from a donor and then surrepticioulys re-channel it back to a particular campaign. This way the donor really isn’t constrained by the limitations of $2400/quarter.
Thus as Teddy SanFran points out…wealthy donors who can contribute to many different PAC’s or other networks that obscure their contributions and actually give hundreds of thousands to their preferred candidate.
Dirty money, indeed.
Another day, another outrage, huh?
At least the SJC is holding Rove in comtempt.
OT:
Breaking News: SJC vote to hold Rove and Bolten in contempt
Via TPM
Weren’t they trying to get somebody appointed to the FEC who was deeply involved in creating election fraud schemes?
You are our hero. Keep it up as long as you can, please.
And LooHoo sneaks in the news just ahead of IrishJim!
*signed*
I’ll try, but eventually I’m going to have to start travelling around the world and apologizing for us.
So I take it the current FEC is rife in chimp appointees…?
signed
Rest assured, the GOP and a handful of Bluedogs and a Lieberbag will scuttle any attempts to bring Rove and Josh the Hand Lover to justice.
-G
That will be even MORE difficult. I wish you well.
Thanks Jane
“They” really are scared shitless of an Edwards nomination and with good reason none the least of which is that he a populist, pro union, pro universal health care etc, etc, etc. The anti-bush if you will.
Edwards had the same position when he ran for the Senate..populist no PAC money…his voting record..not so good.
From eriposte:
link
BTW..At the present time Edwards is my #1 candidate..my point is they are all politicians and the top three are basically the same.
How will you do it, freeway blogger?
So I take it the current FEC is rife in chimp appointees…?
From Wiki:
The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions and, some claim, to discourage rulings which would be harmful to both major parties.
The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term. The current composition of the FEC includes Republican commissioners David Mason (Vice Chairman) and Hans von Spakovsky, and Democratic commissioners Robert Lenhard (Chairman), Stephen Walther and Ellen Weintraub. One Republican seat is vacant due to the resignation of Commissioner Michael Toner in March 2007. As of October 2007 Commissioners Mason and Weintraub were serving past the end of their terms because successors has not yet been named.
So – not so much. FEC has always been, at least theoretically, bi-partisan. And if this wiki is correct, it appears that the D’s currently outnumber the R’s.
How will you do it, freeway blogger?
Maybe if we all sent a nice card….
Yes and no. There is definitely a hope from the MIC that the dems/inds/progressives will do the PC thing and vote for either HRC or BO both of whom are corporate creatures. If we do not do the PC thing we will be condemned as anti black and anti woman. Edwards is not part of the MIC.
Edwards is my #1 as well
Rove bookdealin’ update…reportedly Rupert’s HarperCollins has dropped out of the bidding. Guess it’s all up to Turdblossom’s BFF and partner in
crimeWHIGgery Miz Mary Matalin to wrap up a nice Christmas Present at her imprint for the Merry Trickster..With the SJC contempt vote today he’ll prolly need all those dollars to pay the lawyers. Couldn’t happen to a nicer dancin’ bear. Could backup dancer David Gregory be far behind….
And the wingnut welfare beat goes on…..
Como se dice MIC in ingles, por favor?
Sorry. Military Industrial complex
The meme that Hillary is a corporate creature is not supported by her voting record nor by voting score rating of unions, ADA, Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufactures. The Progressive Punch rates her #1 in voting against corporate welfare. Her behavior is rather odd, she gets a lot of money from the “health” industry and Pharma but she is one of the few Dems who voted against the Drug benefit scam twice and spoke against it on the floor of the Senate..go figure.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..v=hcmodule
The gist of the story is if the FEC doesn’t have a quorum, they can’t meet.
Obama gets a two-fer for placing a hold: blocking Spakovsky (yaaaah!) and blocking Edwards (booooo!)
Ain’t politics grand?
If they won’t let Edwards get matching funds it just shows what a bunch of weak-kneed anti-Democracy small-minded idiots they all are.
First they said Edwards was risking too much by accepting ONLY matching funds. Now they’re so scared of him they have to try and cut his funds even further.
Just how far does a Progressive Dem have to go to get elected fairly?
Vote for Edwards — Support Democracy and get Great Leadership to boot!
Dear Jane,
I love your work. Heard you today being interviewed by, I think, Thom Hartmann, and you made the statement that Obama had run a better campaign than Edwards as the challenger to Hillary Clinton. That was right after Thom spoke about the corporate news blackout of Edwards and his populist message.
Don’t you think Edwards has run a magnificent campaign? I do.
He’s been fearless, he’s always right on the issues, and unlike Obama, he doesn’t support corporate trade deals that trash workers here and abroad.
And yet the Democratic Party (what’s up with Dean?) continues to put James Carville, Mary Matalin’s trained poodle, out to ask us for money! How stupid do they think we are?
This is why everyone should be donating money directly to the campaigns of their choice! This isn’t news as John Edwards’ site has had this info for awhile. I am not a fan of PAC’s.
Always donate direct is the best policy.