A Federal Election
Commission settlement with the Sierra Club
will likely put new limits on how explicit
outside groups may be when trying to influence
voters.The environmental group agreed to
pay a $28,000 fine to settle charges that it
had paid for a brochure that expressly
advocated the election or defeat of candidates
in the 2004 presidential and Senate races from
its corporate treasury.
Because the Sierra Club brochure was found
to contain express advocacy, it was determined
to be an independent expenditure.
Campaign finance laws prohibit money from a
corporate treasury to pay for independent
expenditures.
FEC Chairman Michael Toner described the
settlement as “one of the most important
express advocacy cases the commission has
resolved in recent years.”
The settlement provides a bit more clarity
to a Supreme Court decision, McConnell v. FEC,
that found that the definition of what
constitutes express advocacy goes beyond
so-called “magic words,” such as “vote for” or
“vote against.” That had been the previous
standard used.