Republican and Conservative political analysis and commentary

Ron Paul's supporters continue with the unconventional earned media stunts; this time launching a blimp which will start from NC, fly over Washington and New York, then hold a Tea Party in the Boston Harbor, before continuing into New Hampshire.

However, in addition to being a first for campaign stunts; it will also be the first to test out a new form of spending and funding of campaign related activities by independent groups. Per Politico:

For the money floating the blimp, Collette and Smith have developed a detailed business plan carefully structured to avoid Byzantine campaign finance laws.

They shunned traditional mechanisms such as creating an independent non-profit group under section 527 of the IRS code — like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the other groups that spent millions on ads in 2004 — or a political action committee — like EMILY’s List. Instead, they went an almost unheard of route, establishing a for-profit company: Liberty Political Advertising.

Instead of soliciting donations like a PAC or a campaign or a non-profit political group, Liberty says it’s “selling political advertisements that you can sponsor.”

Each payment will fund a portion of the $350,000-a-month blimp rental fee and associated costs ($10 pays for 1-minute’s worth of advertising on the blimp, while $1 million buys 10 weeks, according to the website).  

Those messages might have been off limits had blimp backers raised money for the effort using a 527, since those groups can’t explicitly support or oppose campaigns.

Likewise, had blimp backers registered with the FEC as a political action committee, they would have had to report how they raised and spent almost every dime. And they would have been barred from accepting contributions of more than $5,000-a-year from any individual.

Things could get a little tricky, though, since payments of more than $250 to fund the blimp likely will be considered “independent expenditures” that require detailed FEC disclosure reports from Liberty’s customers. 

But Collette said his company intends to make it painless to comply.

It will automatically produce independent expenditure forms for customers to print, sign and mail, which Collette predicted they’d do because “word has gotten out that this is going to bury the FEC in paperwork for the cost of stamp.”

He said the goal is to make a profit, then market similar services to supporters of other candidates. “It ain’t nothing like a PAC,” he said. “This is a business.”

The far-reaching consequences of this new form of campaign spending could be profound, because if they are successful it would mean in theory that a similar independent "business" could Swift-boat someone without ever having to disclose the source of funding or how much individuals gave. 

This demonstrates the true weaknesses of campaign finance laws. Money directly equates into getting out a message; and in restricting how much a campaign is able to raise, the government has effectively restricted speech. 

Up to this point, independent groups have been able to skirt the true intention of campaign finance law such as by filing as a 527 group. However, if this new model is successful, one of the most important aspects of campaign finance law - transparency - would be undermined and it could spark a full reexamination of archaic campaign finance laws.