Wrong. I cited the wrong one above and it’s part of the problem with your complaint. A partnership, which the LLC Kos operates is, does not qualify as any of the three. It would qualify under form 5 and not Form 7 which a corporation would file under. IOW, as an individual/partnership, if Markos was making independent expenditures, he would not be a political committee. He would be an individual/partnership that would file entirely differently.

That said, Daily Kos is a media outlet with your example making the point quite well. Club for Growth takes donations from others, does not operate at a profit, operates only as a political committee with no other purpose such as profit, spends money in other media sources to promote candidates that it does not own, and contributes money to other candidates and committees.

More importantly, however, is that those CFR’s which you site very clearly say the number of owners simply don’t matter. It could be one owner, it could be 3,000 owners, it could be owned by every man, woman and child in America. Entirely irrelevant.

And this campaigning crap is also irrelevant. There are three types of groups that the FEC regulations. Campaigns, Parties, and Committees. There are thousands of committees, not all are attached to campaigns. Many support a whole bunch of campaigns. For instance, the Club for Growth who was just fined by the FEC.

Explain to me the qualitative difference between what the Club for Growth does and what Kos Media does without taking into account the media the choose.

No. This is where you don’t understand the precedent. Buckley was primarily discussing individuals spending money on their own campaigns, but the larger precedent was that individual speech cannot be regulated and spending money for that speech is protected. The requirement for disclosure comes in the way of a candidate or people who join together to campaign. Hence, the ownership issue is critical to the first condition under which something is a committee or not. It doesn’t matter if other people work for someone-as few people own printing presses, it matters whether the effort is the work of one individual whether that individual has incorporated or not.

Go talk to an election lawyer. They will tell you this same thing if perhaps in a different way.

-===You may be right on the ultimate outcome of this… however, the appeal wouldn’t address the merits because the FEC simply didn’t address the complaint. Had they written what you just did, I’d have fewer appeal options.

Actually the did explain it, they just felt it irrelevant to the ultimate outcome since the media exemption applied:

Kos Media’s operation of DailyKos may be excluded from the definition of “contribution” or “expenditure” und
either I 1 C.F.R. 8s 100.94(a) and 100.153 a), which apply to uncompensated Internet activity, or 1 1 C.F.R. $5
100.94( d) and 100.155( d), which apply to incorporated bloggers. Because Kos Media was formed as an LLC,
application of the appropriate regulations depends upon how
Kos Media elected to be treated by the Internal
Revenue Service and whether Kos Media has issued publicly traded shares. See 1 1 C.F.R. 0 1 lO.l(g)(3). If Kos
Media chose to be taxed as a corporation or if its shares are publicly traded, then Conmission regulations would
Kos Media as a corporation and the exception provided for incorporated bloggers, 11 C.F.R. $8 100.94(d) a
treat 100.155(d). would apply. Otherwise:
1 1 C.F.R. $3 100.94( a) and 100.155( a) would apply. Because the as to Kos Media’s tax status at this stage of the enforcement process. Coi~iniission does not have inforination applying the media exemption appears
to be more appropriate at this time.

Speak to an elections lawyer. You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

====However, the definition you argue for is circular. Media outlets can’t be regulated because they aren’t part of political committees. But political committees can’t be declared such if they have media outlets. That would be the sole argument I’d appeal on if it got there and it’s messy as hell with no clear conclusion.

No, you don’t understand again. I layed it out using very basic rules of logic for you. A media source can be owned by a political committee or it can not be owned by such. If it is owned by such then it is subject to disclosure under the committee’s responsibilities. If it is not otherwise owned by a committee, it qualifies for the exemption. IOW, unless there is something to the operation besides a media source, it qualifies for the media exemption.

This is all in the relevant law and the decision. You need to talk to an election lawyer who knows something about the subject. You are embarrassing yourself.

You may be right on the ultimate outcome of this… however, the appeal wouldn’t address the merits because the FEC simply didn’t address the complaint. Had they written what you just did, I’d have fewer appeal options.

However, the definition you argue for is circular. Media outlets can’t be regulated because they aren’t part of political committees. But political committees can’t be declared such if they have media outlets. That would be the sole argument I’d appeal on if it got there and it’s messy as hell with no clear conclusion.

I filed the complaint to avoid it, saying Kos Media is a political committee and essentially self identifies as such, so the media exemption doesn’t apply on its face simply because they have a media outlet at DailyKos.

I’m much more subtle and sneaky than you’re giving me credit for.

Right…and I explained above that it was inoperable because it relates to whether or not a committee runs a media source. If it is just a media source, it’s not a committee. Some media sources are run by political committees. Some are not. Those that are not, but advocate for political outcomes are not a political committee by definition. They are the media and the court case is referenced in the Kos brief.

Regulations would not pass Constitutional muster otherwise. The Courts have ruled on this repeatedly. The Constitutionality of campaign finance regulations are based on two basic things. 1) That media can do what it wants as long as it’s not controlled by the party. 2) That individuals have the right to spend their money on advocacy as they see fit and only have to disclose when they are joining with others or a candidate themselves.

I’ve read it. He is the sole owner.

I do have to say that your retort about initial newspapers is the best rebuttal I’ve seen yet. Better than Kos, and sorry I didn’t get the chance to say that earlier. But again, if you want to argue what the law should be, that’s an entirely different discussion. I’m not a fan of how the FEC runs things either, and I’m sure we’d probably agree on what should be in its place. But you have to deal with what the law is, not what you’d like it to be. I think McCain-Feingold (at least the censorship parts) are total BS and unconstitutional, but its still the law of the land.

Two, if you read the media exemption there are conditions to it, namely if a political committee owns it, operates it, etc, it doesn’t get the media exemption. If the FEC said that they disagree with the allegation that Kos is a PC, then I’d probably have very little to appeal on. But I did so allege which makes the media exemption irrelevant. In fact, you’ve quoted the relevant portion, “Second, in determining the scope of the exception, the Commission considers: (1) whether the
press entity is owned or controlled by a political party, political committee, or candidate;”… you read that, right?

You’re right, if the RNC operates a paper, it’d be subject. That’s why I argued the Kos Media is a PC to begin with, it bypasses the media exemption until that question is resolved. That question was ignored which gives me an easy appeal. Now, I’ll grant you, even if I appeal and the FEC has to do it again, I still may lose. However, they way they closed this was so sloppy that it makes it easy to get a court that says go back and try again.

But again, read Kos’ affidavit… it isn’t a single person operation. Read Kos’ own words on that point. Don’t trust me, read it for yourself. It’s simply not true. If you take the affidavit at face value it’s either 2 or 17, depending on if you want to count the editors. I’m not making it up, it’s Kos’ affidavit, not mine.

I’m not really sure where to start with this, but political parties are defined in law as a particular type of not-for-profit corporation that cannot be owned by a single individual as a LLC can be. In fact, any political committee taking donations has to fall under different categories of organizations that are not-for-profit status.

Now, where you don’t seem to grasp the point is that an individual can spend whatever they want as individuals and not coordinating with anyone else as they wish unless they are a candidate themself. As such, and LLC run by a single individual who is not a candidate does not qualify as a committee. This is why the law refers to committees. Buckley v. Valejo established that individual spending is simply free speech. It is when they join together with others to influence elections that they form a committee. This is a substantive discussion that is rather basic to understand.

So, given Kos Media, LLC, is a single person operation, it cannot be a political committee by definition. Very simple.

Second, it is a media outlet as defined by the law. So it cannot be a political committee because it has the media exemption. It doesn’t matter if a media source is biased or works towards the election of particular candidates or parties, it is still a media source and as such cannot be a committee. The only way that doesn’t apply is if a political committee creates a media source and runs it as a part of the operation of that committee. So, if the Republican Party starts a newspaper, it would still be subject to the rules of disclosure for the paper. If a Republican supporter runs a newspaper, they are a media source.

As mentioned earlier, the initial newspapers in the United States and those through the early part of the 20th Century were exactly the kind of partisan media sources that the Daily Kos is and so the First Amendment protects them from regulation.

Your complaint is ignorant of the law and history. Heckuva job.

I’ve read the FiredUp ruling, read my complaint and at least make an attempt to figure out why I’m arguing that it’s not relevant. In particular pay attention to the exceptions.

And I mean this, you are probably the densest person I’ve ever seen.

Kos Media, an entity owned by one person, cannot be a committee for two reasons. First, there is a sole owner. Sole owners may have people who work for them, but he is sole owner and that is the relevant point. Second, it qualifies for the media exemption so even if there were more people involved, it’s not a political committee of any type. Hence, it’s not a political committee.

As the Fired Up! ruling stated:

he Commission notes that anentity otherwise eligible for the press exception would not lose its eligibility merely because of a lack of objectivity in a news story, commentary, or editorial, even if the news story, commentary, or editorial expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office. See First General Counsel’s Report, MUR5440 (CBS Broadcasting, Inc.) (“Even seemingly biased stories or commentary by a press entity can fall within the media exemption.”)

+++++++++++++

Read before you waste everyone’s time.

Also, read Kos’ affidavit and his lawyers filing, not only is their Markos, he has a tech guy, and if you want to count them, the 15 editors. Even if you count just 2, that’s enough. But then again, I didn’t name Markos, I named his company and corporations aren’t individuals.