Your opinion about 527's , such as Move On.

Recent calls by the Obama campaign says do not give to independent political advocacy groups such as Move On, etc. Critics of 527's such as John McCain and Russell Feingold say they are adjunct arms of the political parties and should be shut up within like 90 days of the general election. / Have you donated to 527's. Do you think 527's to be an unofficial arm of the national political parties. ? / I contribute to organizations such as 527's and will continue to. I contribute because they are independent of political parties, if I don't like the general direction of the political parties. / So , I see them as being my independent voice to express what I feel should the National parties let us down. / Our way of molding the national parties, should they triangulate from the promises of the primary season. / So McCain has his way and shuts down 527's I say my right to expression is stifled. / Should the Obama campaign let us down on issues such as trade, Iraq, etc. I have every intention of doing all we can to bring him back to his promises that caused many to vote for him in the Primary season. Example. Look to John Kerry's campaign. Too bad Move On had not fought John Kerry's fight. He sure did not.
Your views.

an ACTIVE and INFORMED electorate is the sine qua non of Freedom. To the extent that the electorate is passive, ignorant, SLAVES, 527s can be just as bad as any other OPPRESSOR.

The American people who can need to donate their money to food banks not Obama. But, the way things are now I do donate money to Obama. I resent that we don't have a system like most European countries.

Sometimes that's good, sometimes its not. I don't agree with everything MoveOn does, although I agree with much of it.

a way for Democrats and Republicans to get around fundraising rules. I'd be happy with their existence assuming that they were not allowed to mention any candidates or parties, either by name or through reasonable implication.

I've been seeing these AARP commercials that feature both McCain and Obama talking about a certain subject or another. Usually healthcare but sometimes education and sometimes Social Security. Then the AARP announcer says it's time we citizens get actively involved and tell our politicians it will take more than talk to get things done.

I like the idea of 527's advocating for an issue rather than slamming a certain individual or party.

that MoveOn would not be running 527 ads out of deference to Obama's position on them.

The problem with 527s or any ad for that matter is that they take info out of context and some downright lie.

IMHO they are just one more example of the dumbing down of the American electorate who seem to have no problems making decisions on who they vote for based on slick misleading 30 second TV spots.

yet, we contribute to Move On, when our positions match theirs. / My point they are mostly separate political advocacy groups. Should the Democratic party double cross me, I am determined to find an outlet to match my views. / If legally disallowed, I view their illegality as an infringement on my political rights.

I may agree with a lot of what moveon.org says, but if the organization disappeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed a tear.

When a campaign tacitly forms a 527 with a single, campaign-related mission, it's an obvious but hard to prove exploitation of a loophole in the campaign finance law.

Move On supports several causes and has proven to have a lifespan beyond a single election. They're legit.

Where do you draw a clear line to close up the loophole? assuming we have to put a band-aid on campaign finance law, instead of a complete overhaul which we really need.

That is to say like any group they have motives driven and backed by various people with all sorts of opinions that we are supposed to believe are for our own good.

I would much rather have the people be aware and then push back what they know are not in their best interests.

But highly organized and motivated groups bug the hell out of me. They don't speak for me , I speak for me.

With countless organized groups out there covering one end of the spectrum to the other who the hell knows or would ever know how to sort through it all.

Many groups pray on the fact that we have a dumbed down society.

It's like feed me , feed me , feed me , so we can tell you what to think. No different that these freaky political parties pushing their candidate.

If any of it actually worked for the people then one would think by this time we would be at peace and no one would be left out hanging in the breeze but this is far from the case.

What is the cost now of a campaign , hundreds of millions , that in itself is a sickness that needs to be looked at as just that , A SICKNESS and they are all guilty.

People won't find it themselves to donate money in an amount even close to this , what they can see with their very own eyes exist, yet they will when it comes to some group or politician with their own personal ambitions.

But then, I think all campaigns should be 100% publicly funded, with no donations from anywhere, and no outside campaigning, or funding of campaigning, allowed.

Every candidate with an equal war chest, guaranteed equal and equally neutral media time, no corporate media debates, but debates that make sure every candidate answers every question, every candidate gets equal talk time, and no media talking heads to spin the debate after the fact.

You know...an equal starting line, the same track, and voters required to listen and think and make up their own minds without group think. As a matter of fact, I'd like to ban all polling about campaigns, as well, in the spirit of independent thinking and independent choices.

That's just me.

Who says a political party has the consistency to speak for us. We also contribute to the Sierra Club. McCain's plan would stiffle our right to free speech should we stray from party platforms . Who says all of political discussion is centered about party politics. Party politics is just want we want to influence. / Move On has always asked our opinion before centering on a 'hit piece's as critics would charge. They are not some monolithic group for the most part, but often our members have every right to influence what political action they democratically wish to sponsor.

If it helps, I'd also move to IRV and some form of proportional representation; something that would end the 2 party strangle-hold on the nation.

I never considered donating to Move-on; what little I have to donate usually goes to groups working on specific issues. The only candidate I've ever donated a dime to is DK, because of the issues he champions.

I wouldn't have donated to move-on this cycle, anyway. I got sick and tired of them emailing me to push Obama. They'd be more relevant, imo, if they would use their organization and their activities to move issues on, rather than candidates.

Its an election year and Move On's priorities may have shifted more to wards political action. But, in non election years, Issues, I say is their forte.

I'd agree that they seemed more issues focused at that time; at least, that's what I spent my time there on. ;)

Support 527s? Yes. Move On did great ads against the Iraq war. Their campaign to solicit 30 second videos generated thousands of entries that we then could vote on to select the best one. This gets people a little involved in the process not just donating money and sitting back. VoteVet is another issue organization that has run very strong antiwar TV ads that do not endorse a specific candidate but clearly aim at the war mongers in the White House and Congress.

Every once in a while there is a thread on DU that asks why we are not out in the street loudly confronting oppressive unconstitutional government policies. The answer is that people are not (yet?) ready for this level of action. In the meantime, we have to use every weapon possible to stop McBush. That includes 527s and anything else we have.

Rather than a philosophical discussion about public campaign funding (a good idea BTW) we have to think of this election as a non-violent war to save the country and the Constitution. We are up against a almost-fascist administration that has the Patriot ACT, the Military Commissions Act and warrentless wiretaps that they can use against us at any time, and we are contemplating whether we should use 527s to help us? Not just yes - hell yes!

reason enough for 527's.!.

That's the Obama point of view, I suspect.

Media and the GOP focus not on 527 money, which no one can really know in real time, but on the money Obama and the DNC have. The bigger Obama's account, the harder it is for McCain to raise money. He wants and needs every dollar he can get, to control his ability to market properly from September through the election.

527s are always going to be independent of the candidates, although that term is stretched to include loosely coordinated or supportive efforts of friendly groups.

I've got no battle with move on, but I would prefer to see Obama, the DNC, the DSCC, and the DCCC get money, in that order, before any other group gets money.