Shadow groups push legal limits in political ads

The surge of secret money being spent to influence the 2010 midterms may be only the beginning of the unraveling of the country's campaign finance laws. Now outside interest groups are also skirting the line when it comes to making endorsements in political ads.

Under the law, independent interest groups are not allowed to explicitly endorse or argue for the defeat of specific candidates in political ads. But as the New York Times' Michael Luo reports, some groups are using words like "vote for" or "vote against" in political spots in the final weeks of the campaign, phrases that used to land outside groups into legal trouble.

The landscape has changed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in January, which overturned rules limiting fundraising and spending by outside interest groups. With federal officials unsure how to regulate such spending, some shadow groups are now pushing the envelope even further with sharper messages in the campaign's final weeks.

Among the examples Luo cites is the American Future Fund, an Iowa conservative group that has spent millions in secret contributions to boost Republicans ahead of Election Day. One of the group's targets: Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright, who is fighting to win re-election in Alabama's 2nd Congressional District.

In several recent ads, the fund has sought to link Bright, a conservative Democrat in a heavily GOP district, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In one ad, the group accused Bright of "trying to trick" voters in the state about his association with Pelosi and her agenda. "Magic won't change Pelosi's agenda, but your vote can make her supporter Bobby Bright disappear," a narrator says, as the phrase "Vote Bobby Bright out" appears on the screen.

In an ad released late last month, the group was even more explicit, arguing that Election Day presents a "fork in the road" between a new Congress and Pelosi's agenda. "Take the right path," the narrator says. "Vote against Bobby Bright."

You can watch the ad here:

It seems unlikely that officials will attempt to stop such ads from airing--but independent groups that explicitly push and oppose specific candidates could face some legal peril after the election. As The Upshot has previously reported, groups such as Crossroads GPS, which file as nonprofits under the 501(c)3 designation that the IRS reserves for issue advocacy organizations, have pushed back against campaign-finance watchdogs. Critics say that such groups shouldn't be allowed to hide their donors behind the claim that their ads are "issue"-oriented, as opposed to focusing on specific candidates.

Luo notes that using words like "support" or "vote for" or "vote against" could put that tax status as risk—if, that is, federal officials choose to investigate.

(Screenshot of an American Future Fund ad against Bobby Bright)