Talk:Progress for America

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Original article taken from Sourcewatch which is under GFDL. --Gbleem 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably biased

Given this article's source, it is likely to be highly biased. Needs checking for leading statements, and conclusions that might not be supported by valid sources. Nssdfdsfds 19:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...long-time Republican strategists were already scheming how to get around the law’s ban on soft-money contributions. They found an answer in Progress for America (PFA)." Is this really supposed to be NPOV? 130.101.100.141 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why no mention of PFA's legal trouble?

FEBRUARY 28, 2007

Progress for America Voter Fund Statement on the Announced Settlement with the Federal Election Commission.

Today, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced its settlement with Progress for America Voter Fund (PFA-VF) related to activities in 2004.

Under the terms of the settlement, PFA-VF is not admitting to any wrong doing. In order to conclude the matter, PFA-VF will pay $750,000 and agree to register as a political committee if it undertakes any activities similar to those in 2004. With this settlement, all actions regarding PFA-VF are concluded.

PFA-VF was formed in 2004 and prior to any PFA-VF communications, the Federal Election Commission had refused to:

   * clarify by advisory opinion how the newly enacted McCain-Feingold bill impacted 527 organizations (ABC PAC);

   * act upon a complaint charging the 527 groups with violating the law (Bush-Cheney ’04, RNC), and

   * issue a rulemaking delineating permissible 527 activities.

The FEC’s inactions left all 527 groups, including PFA-VF, to their own interpretation of the law. The FEC subsequently announced a “case by case” enforcement policy and opened investigations into violations of the very statutes for which the Commission had refused to provide guidance.

Responding to the announced FEC settlement, Progress for America Voter Fund legal counsel Benjamin L. Ginsburg issued the following statement:

“Today’s settlement brings to close a disappointing chapter in the evolution of election law. Despite Congressional pressure to impose some set of rules or provide guidance for so called ‘527’ groups, the FEC still refuses to do so. Given the ambiguous legal nature of this situation and the cost of litigating this dispute, PFA-VF has decided it is a more prudent use of its resources and energy to conclude this proceeding.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.52.46 (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]