|
A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (). A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office. Technically, almost all political committees, including state, local, and federal candidate committees, traditional political action committees, "Super PACs", and political parties are "527s." However, in common practice the term is usually applied only to such organizations that are not regulated under state or federal campaign finance laws because they do not "expressly advocate" for the election or defeat of a candidate or party. There are no upper limits on contributions to 527s and no restrictions on who may contribute. There are no spending limits imposed on these organizations; however, they must register with the IRS, publicly disclose their donors and file periodic reports of contributions and expenditures.〔The Center for Public Integrity, 527 Frequently Asked Questions http://projects.publicintegrity.org/527/default.aspx?act=faq#5〕 Because they may not expressly advocate for specific candidates or coordinate with any candidate’s campaign, many 527s are used to raise money to spend on issue advocacy and voter mobilization. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Texans for Truth, The Media Fund, America Coming Together, the Progress for America Voter Fund, and the Secretary of State Project. ==Legal history== 527s are the result of a distinction made by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo. In that decision, the Court attempted to draw a limit on the extent to which campaign finance laws could regulate speech about politics. The Court's answer was that campaign finance laws could only reach party and candidate committees, organizations with the major purpose of electing candidates, or speech that "expressly advocated" the election or defeat of candidates. Determining whether or not a group had the major purpose of electing candidates depended, in turn, on whether "express advocacy" was their primary activity. In footnote 6 of the Buckley opinion, the Court limited "express advocacy" to words and phrases such as "Smith for Congress," "elect," "defeat," or other specific calls for action to vote for or against a candidate. Thus, organizations could run ads discussing candidates and issues without being subject to campaign finance restrictions, so long as they avoided such express advocacy. The McCain-Feingold law, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, extended certain campaign finance limitations to broadcast ads run within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election if they mentioned a candidate, regardless of whether or not they contained "express advocacy." The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this provision in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. Based on that decision many persons urged the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to use its regulatory power to extend campaign finance laws to cover these groups. The Commission held hearings in April 2004 to determine whether or not 527s should be regulated under campaign finance rules, but concluded that the law did not cover these independent 527 organizations unless they directly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate or engaged in broadcast advertising mentioning within the 30 and 60 day windows specified by Congress in the McCain-Feingold law. Nevertheless, Federal Election Commission rulings after the 2004 election attempted to extend the reach of the law to advertisements which questioned a candidate’s character and fitness for office off limits to 527s specifically. * On September 18, 2009, the Federal Appeals Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that these groups have a First Amendment right to raise and spend freely to influence elections so long as they do not coordinate their activities with a candidate or a party.〔EMILY’s List v. FEC, 581 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2009).〕〔Court Backs Outside Groups' Political Spending http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/us/politics/19donate.html〕 * In January 2010, the Supreme Court held that the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns or coordinate their activity with campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through independent expenditure groups. * In July 2010, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruling in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission struck down fundraising limits on independent expenditure-only committees, (commonly known as Super PACs) which, like 527s, can raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals, unions, associations and corporations to influence elections. Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686, (U.S.C.A. D.C. 2010). These PACs must also disclose their finances to the FEC and cannot coordinate with candidates or political parties. The difference is that they may directly advocate for or against a candidate. The Speechnow.org and Citizens United decisions made 527s much less valuable as a medium of political communication, and their use declined substantially in the elections of 2010 and 2012 . In Carey ''et al.'' v. FEC – RADM James J. Carey, USN (ret), chairman of the National Defense PAC, along with the PAC and a prospective donor, brought suit after the FEC deadlocked on a 2010 Advisory Opinion Request (see AO 2010-20), in which the PAC sought permission to operate both an independent expenditure PAC and a traditional PAC that could make contributions to candidates and was subject to fundraising restrictions. Carey's victory in the court now allows organizations to operate both traditional and "Super" PACs. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「527 organization」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|