Despite my uncertainty -- Here's some potential info about that "mysterious" Edwards supporter

In discussing the role being played by 527 groups in the 2008 presidential caucuses and primaries, some published media reports have stated that these political groups can raise and spend unlimited contributions in the presidential race, as long as they do not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate and do not coordinate their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

This statement is wrong.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission found that numerous 527 groups illegally spent unlimited contributions in the 2004 presidential election, without explicitly urging people to "vote for" or "vote against" a presidential candidate, and without coordinating their efforts with a presidential candidate or campaign.

In a number of enforcement cases arising out of the 2004 presidential election and decided within the last year, the FEC found that these 527 groups had violated the campaign finance laws by failing to register as federal "political committees," and by failing to abide by the limits that apply to contributions made to such committees.

In each case, the Commission made a determination that the 527 group was spending money to influence the election or defeat of a presidential candidate, even though the group did not explicitly urge people to "vote for" or "vote against" a candidate. And in each case, the Commission found that the 527 group had a "major purpose" to influence federal elections.

-snip

"Despite the FEC findings of widespread illegal conduct by 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, it appears that 527 groups are blatantly and arrogantly at it again in the current presidential race," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer stated.

"These 527 groups are spending large sums of unlimited contributions on what they claim are 'issue ads' but what instead are unquestionably 'campaign ads' being run to influence the 2008 presidential election." Wertheimer said.

"Given the past FEC determinations that illegal expenditures were made by numerous 527 groups in the 2004 presidential election, no one should be making the assumption that the 527 groups currently spending millions of dollars in Iowa and New Hampshire are doing so legally," Wertheimer stated. "In reality, these 527 groups may be making illegal expenditures in 2008, just as 527 groups did in 2004."

"Second, this is not the only questionable issue about this 527. Other problems involve the email of October 8, on which the New York Times reported, from the organizers of the 527, baldly stating that they were talking to the Edwards campaign to coordinate. That is illegal. (Well, their all being lawyers probably assured that the 527 was not officially incorporated until after these discussions took place ... but again, highly unethical). Coordination between 527s and campaigns is strictly verboten.
"

From: David Rolf
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:27 PM
To: Rickman Jackson; redacted; redacted; Tom Woodruff; Anna Burger; Josie Mooney; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Alice Dale, Kristy Sermersheim; Dana Graham; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; redacted; Gary Smith; redacted; David Rolf; redacted; redacted

Cc: Stacy Pederson
Subject: SEIU for Edwards conference call

This email provides the notes from today’s “SEIU for Edwards,” meeting, a summary of decisions, and an announcement of our Saturday phone call. Skip to the end for the call-in numbers for Saturday if you were at the meeting and don’t need the summary. And also note everyone’s email addresses above, for future communications.

At today’s “SEIU for Edwards” meeting convened in Chicago upon adjournment of the IEB, we decided:

1) To spend this week moving the maximum number of states into a pro-Edwards position using the procedures adopted by the IEB. Our targets for an early round of endorsements are: AZ, AR, CA, CO, GA, IA, ID, KY, LA, MA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MT, NH, OH, TN, TX, WA, and WV. (A potential second round might include any from the above list that can’t move as fast as this week, plus OR, RI, CT, NV, and PA, depending on some state-specific factors).

2) To be prepared to roll out thse endorsement in a coordinated press strategy with the Edwards campaign next week, possibly as early as Monday.

3) To discuss with the Edwards campaign what specific sort of support they’d like to see from us, given our new state-based strategy. Tom Woodruff will talk to David Bonior; I will talk to Chris Cafe; Cathy Singer Glasson and I will visit the Edwards operation in Iowa on Wednesday.

4) To bring-on a full-time staff person to coordinate our efforts and plan the campaign. Payroll & legal structure will be determined by attorneys, but will not be on SEIU International payroll, since SEIU International is not making an endorsement at this time. People should move suggested names to Tom. W. There was general agreement that the campaign will likely involve fundraising, field work in early states, media in early states, and require full time staffing and a serious 527 legal structure for any communication beyond our membership.

5) To operate this group as an “SEIU for Edwards” steering committee, and to expand it to include local union executive officers from non-IEB locals that are pro-Edwards (for example, Missouri).

6) To meet again by conference call on Saturday, October 13 at 8 am PDT/11 am EDT. The call-in number will be the same as previous “SEIU for Edwards” calls” 1-866-285-7776 participant code 775000; host code 465874.

Talk to you then,

David Rolf