An item in the national briefing column of today's New York Times reports, "The Federal Election Commission has recognized the Green Party as a national committee, a step that will allow it to collect larger campaign contributions -- up to $20,000 a year per donor -- and send money to state and local party committees. But party rules cap such donations at $10,000 a year, officials said, and the party's candidates refuse contributions from corporations."
It's a bit misleading to say that "the party's candidates refuse contributions from corporations." After all, as the Web site of the Green Party of New Jersey points out, "Federal law prohibits contributions to a political committee from the general treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations or national banks (including corporate credit cards)."
Now, there are ways around this -- the corporation can create a political action committee, or can donate amounts that are meant for general party-building activities and not for the express advocacy of the election or defeat of a particular candidate. Local laws vary. But the sentence in the Times makes it sound like the Green candidates are somehow holier than thou, when in fact they are simply doing what the law requires. (Smartertimes.com considers the law an abridgement of the First Amendment, but that is another story.) Where did the Times get this language? Here's how the Green Party press release issued yesterday put it: "National Committee status will permit the Green Party to accept contributions up to $20,000 per year from individuals, but internal Green Party rules cap such donations at $10,000 per year. The party and its candidates also refuse contributions from corporations." There's an eerie similarity between the Green Party press release and the Times news item.
It may be that what the Green Party and the Times are trying to convey is that the party and its candidates do not accept contributions from political action committees. If so, that is interesting, not only because it does go beyond what the law requires, but because it runs counter to a strain of Naderite-good government thought which actually sees political action committees as a positive force in increasing grassroots political involvement, giving groups of small donors that band together some influence to balance that of the big contributors. But the Times news brief sheds no light on this question.
The question of who is funding the Green Party would actually be pretty fertile ground for an enterprising news organization. It would be interesting to know, for instance, how much of the party's funding comes directly or indirectly from trial lawyers and labor unions.
SPECIAL CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT: Editors, reporters, page designers, photojournalists -- Smartertimes.com was founded June 19, 2000, "dedicated to assembling a community of readers to support a new newspaper that would offer an alternative to the dominant daily." That effort has now advanced to the point where searches are underway for certain staff. Editors, reporters, page designers and photojournalists willing to work long hours in an entrepreneurial, start-up environment are invited to apply. Positions are available in New York City, Albany and Washington, D.C., and in features and culture as well as "hard" news. Successful applicants will be sagacious scoop-getters, who can write smooth fast, who don't mind working hard and who are excited about covering New York. For all positions, a premium will be placed on versatility. Interested candidates should contact [email protected] with a letter and resume. This is an equal opportunity employer.