2 Groups Seek Exceptions to Limits on Preelection TV Ads

Two nonprofit organizations urged federal regulators Wednesday to exempt charities and foundations from provisions of the new campaign finance law that restrict television advertisements before an election.

The plea from the Sierra Club Foundation and the Alliance for Justice came as the Federal Election Commission began debating the law’s efforts to rein in broadcast ads, funded by unregulated donations to special interest groups, that attack or promote political candidates.

Under the law, the unregulated donations--known as soft money--may not be used to pay for ads that mention a candidate for federal office 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

The authors of the law designed these provisions to crack down on so-called sham-issue ads that are often used to influence elections. They feared that the proliferation of such ads would defeat the main point of the law, which was to prohibit national parties and federal candidates from collecting soft money.

But the law allows the FEC to create exceptions to the preelection advertising rule. The two nonprofit groups argued, in written testimony, that the commission should cut a break for public charities and private foundations in the interest of free speech.

At stake, they said, was the ability of certain tax-exempt interest groups to have a voice in public debates before elections. The groups contend that the tax code already prevents charities from becoming directly involved in electoral politics.

“If we were to run ads that were partisan, we would be in violation of the tax law,” John DeCock, executive director of the Sierra Club Foundation, said in an interview.

But DeCock said the foundation, which underwrites the Sierra Club’s charitable activities, ought to be able to fund advertisements that educate the public about critical environmental issues, even if the ads mention a candidate.

Like the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Justice, an association consisting largely of liberal advocacy groups, is a major player in Washington’s ideological wars; it has, for instance, campaigned to block the nominations of some conservatives to the federal judiciary.

In comments posted on the alliance’s Web site, www.afj.org, the groups complained that without an exception to the law, charities would be barred from broadcasting fund-raising appeals or public service announcements that feature people who are federal candidates if the appeals run soon before an election.

“Documentaries and other educational programming featuring individuals who are candidates would also be banned,” the groups said.

The election commission is not expected to issue regulations on preelection advertising until late next month.

The debate comes as critics of the commission charge that it has weakened many provisions of a law designed by Congress to diminish the appearance of a corrupting influence of big money in politics.

The law, which limits the raising and spending of soft money, is to take effect Nov. 6, the day after this fall’s elections, but lawsuits are challenging it as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court will have the final say on whether all or part of the law survives.

In the meantime, both Democrats and Republicans are continuing to raise soft money at a blistering pace.

Common Cause, a group that opposes soft money, reported Wednesday that the two parties had raised more than $300 million in soft money in the first year and a half of the 2002 election cycle. Of that, Republicans had raised $180 million and Democrats more than $120 million. The group said the soft money total exceeded by 18% the $256 million raised during the comparable period during the 2000 campaign.