"MoveOn Ad Flap Likely to Be Replicated – On Both Sides – Through 2008"

Source:  CQ Politics – 9/19/2007

Thoughts: In an age of where the Republicans are looking for something that they can use to stimulate their base, the MoveOn.org ad appeared. It caused more momentum within the party and in the general public alone than two days of testimony by General Petraeus. So, it is only logical that the Republicans keep the ad in the news in order to shift the negative attention away from them and onto an outside source. Unfortunately, that well will dry up, and without any good news of their own or another controversial item popping up, any boost they are receiving now will fade before the elections.

Article:  “MoveOn Ad Flap Likely to Be Replicated – On Both Sides – Through 2008″
By Emily Cadei

First it was the fodder for an eruption of Republican outrage. Now the full-page ad that MoveOn.org ran in the New York Times on Sept. 10 slamming Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, is the target of a campaign finance complaint with the Federal Election Committee (FEC).

(Article continues.)

In the complaint filed last Friday, the American Conservative Union (ACU), a conservative political action organization, has alleged that the New York Times had in effect made a contribution to MoveOn.org Political Action, the political action committee (PAC) of the liberal group, by charging a below-market rate for the ad. Under federal election law, PACs are prohibited from accepting individual donations in excess of $5,000 in a given calendar year. The law also bans corporations from making any kind of contribution to political campaigns or committees.

ACU Chairman David A. Keene, in documents filed with the FEC, cited media reports on the rate of a full-page black-and-white ad in the Times that ranged between $167,000 and $181,000. MoveOn.org has stated that it paid $65,000 for its Petraeus ad, which ran on the first of two days of congressional testimony in which the general strongly defended President Bush’s troop “surge” policy in Iraq. The difference, according to Keene, “constitutes a corporate soft money contribution to a federal political committee” — something that, if deemed true, would be a violation of federal election law that could subject the participants to fines.

CQPolitics.com asked ACU spokesman Bill Lauderback if the complaint had anything to do with the content of the MoveOn ad, which portrayed Petraeus as “General Betray Us” and accused him of providing political cover to the president in his controversial prosecution of the Iraq war. Lauderback replied, “MoveOn.org has a constitutional right to say anything it wishes. It does not have the liberty, however, of violating federal law as it relates to the receipt of corporate contributions.”

But the New York Times dismisses the notion that the ad amounted to any sort of political contribution. While Catherine J. Mathis, the newspaper’s vice president of corporate communications, said the Times does not publicly disclose the amount any one advertiser pays, she stated that MoveOn’s fee “is the rate that we would charge normally for that type of ad under those conditions. It would be available to other similar advertisers.”

In a separate press statement on the subject, the New York Times explained, “Rates vary based on such factors as time of year, color, day of the week, section, volume of advertising placed by the advertiser, etc. We do not distinguish advertising rates based on the political content of the ad. In fact, the advertising department does not see the content of the ad before a rate is quoted.”

(Read the rest of the article here.)