Soccer Dad

5 + 2 = 7 ?

The FEC fined three groups for their illegal contributions during the 2004 Presidential election.

The biggest fine went against the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth, an organization that attacked 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s combat credentials.

It has agreed to pay nearly $300,000 after the FEC found that the anti-Kerry group had failed to properly register as a political committee and violated campaign donation limits imposed on such groups, according to an announcement released by the FEC today.

A political arm of the League of Conservation Voters, an environmental group, agreed to pay $180,000 for a door-to-door canvassing operation that the FEC concluded was designed to promote the election of Kerry.

MoveOn.org Voter Fund, which operated separately from the online arm of the liberal organization, reached a settlement for $150,000. The Voter Fund received much attention when it accepted millions from New York financier George Soros to run television ads attacking President Bush.

A recent Washington Post editorial recently weighed in on the matter with Finally 527s

The Swift Boaters alone (fine $299,500) spent more than $13 million that shouldn't, it turns out, have been allowed into the political system. Ask Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) about the effect that money had.

Some things about that sentence don't add up.

For one thing, the implication here is that Sen. Kerry was hurt more by this illegal activity than was President Bush. Except the editorial notes that a total of $29 million was spent illegally. If $13 million was spent by the Swift Boat Veterans, then $16 million was spent by the anti-Bush organizations. Somehow President Bush was re-elected despite that extra money his opponents spent to unseat him.

Maybe it was because John Kerry testified to a memory that was "seared" into his conciousness that turned out to be false. The Swift Boat Veterans exploited Kerry's faulty memory. That's why their tactics worked.

The other problem is that one could argue that a newspaper making a major issue out of a single word could have a major effect on a campaign. Just ask soon to be retiring Sen. George Allen. Should we start regulating what newspaper may or may not report lest it unfairly damage a candidate's chances at winning?

For that reason PostWatch is unimpressed with the editorial.

When the Washington Post advocates a law banning newspapers from publishing negative stories about politicians during a campaign, I'll start to take them seriously.

Blogdigger tags: Campaing Finance, 527, Washington Post, Media Bias.