SINCLAIR: A Question About Campaign Finance Law..

[ulTRAX]

On http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/
there was this quote by DNC spokeperson Jano Cabrera:

"Federal campaign finance law states it is illegal for a corporation to contribute anything of value to a federal campaign or a national political committee, including broadcast communications, said Cabrera."

I think quoting chapter and verse of campaign finance law would be essential in any complaint letters written to or about Sinclair... or to their advertisers. I can't find anything at the DNC site though they do have this on Sinclair: http://www.democrats.org/news/200410110001.html I don't have time now to track down this specific legal provision... nor wade though all the Sinclair posts here. Does anyone have a legal cite?

Thanks!

[Robbien]

1. This is the FEC section I have been adding to my emails

FEC rules being broken by Sinclair Broadcasting:

-"funds from corporations (whether nonprofit or for-profit entities) and unions may not be used to pay for 'electioneering communications', which are broadcast, cable, or satellite communications that:

- refer to a clearly identified Federal candidate;

- are broadcast within 60 days before the general election of the candidate or within 30 days before the party primary, convention, or caucus that nominates the candidate;

- are targeted to the "relevant electorate," i.e., over 50,000 persons in the State or district that the candidate seeks to represent.

[TaleWgnDg]

2. for starters, try this

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. § 441b . . . which if memory serves correctly was reviewed by USSupCt not too long ago; however, it should be Shepardized as well as check for other relevant laws.

edited to add: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000441---b000-.html

[mzmolly]

3. Here's a tad bit of info. Also PM IMRadioactive and bush is an idiot

New Advertising Limitations for Broadcasters ~ Starting on November 6, 2002, broadcasting of certain campaign advertisements will be prohibited. The campaign finance reform bill, signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday March 27, 2002, bans unions, corporations and interest groups from using so-called "soft" money to broadcast advertisements that: 1) refer to a clearly identified candidate, 2) air within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election and 3) can be seen or heard by at least 50,000 people in a candidate's state or congressional district. These provisions, among others, stirred immediate contention. Within several hours of the law's passage, both the National Rifle Association and a group led by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) filed suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the law's constitutionality. They argue that by restricting the political speech of specific groups, the campaign finance reform act violates not only the First Amendment's protection of free speech but also the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The legislation calls for appeals to be expedited to the Supreme Court.

http://www.mofo.com/news/bulletin.cfm?MCatID=4672&concentrationID=&ID=707&Type=7#04

And ... check this out!

April 30, 2004

It's Always About Politics And Never About Lives

Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline" that will air the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.

In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program " appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."

According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed.

You tell me what's more politically motivated: The airing of the show or the attempts to block it. Judging by the financial contributions, I think it has now become obvious.

I find it funny how politically motivated these CEO types are; giving the maximum to one party and nothing to the other. $2,000 is nothing to them. It's would be like me throwing a nickel to a homeless person. The amount of money is so insignificant that is doesn't matter what you do with it. Yet most executives in the USA would never give money to the Democrats, yet if they do contribute, it's usually 10 - 20 percent to the Dems and the rest to Republicans.

This could be one of the many reasons why Bush is so loved by executives.

http://takedownthewall.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_takedownthewall_archive.html

[DesEtoiles]

4. www.fec.gov

Look there.

Also- send e-mails to the affiliates.

Remind them that it will be the low level employees who will lose jobs, be charged with crimes, etc. The big wigs have enough lawyers and enough millions to get them off.

Ask the affiliates - do you really want to fall on your sword for these losers? Lose your job? Lose your healcare?