With a title like that, you might be expecting Marc Antony-like irony ("Brutus is an honorable man"), but I'm actually serious. I like 527s, and wholeheartedly support the concept. Sure, it could use a little more openness, but the basic idea is sound. Three examples from the campaign trail today show why.

But before we get to that, let's start with some definitions. A 527, for those of you who don't already know, is an organization (it's more properly called a "527 group") that raises money and then spends it to further their own political agenda. It is called a 527 because of the section of the IRS rules it exists under. If you want to make a political point -- any political point -- you can form a 527, raise money from donors, and then spend that money on a print, radio, or television advertisement campaign. You find some deep-pocket donor, get him or her to pony up a few million bucks (or raise it from small donors online), and then you air ads on television saying whatever you want. Well, that's not 100% true, as there are limits to what you can say. You can't, for instance, come out and say "vote for Obama," because that puts you in a whole different section of the IRS tax code. But other than advocating for one particular candidate, you can pretty much say whatever you want.

People from both ends of the political spectrum love to hate 527s. There's a reason for this -- they can say pretty much anything they want to. It sounds reasonable, but it may not when you realize that the most famous 527 to date (their name has now even been officially "verbized") is the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth." They played a major part in John Kerry's loss in the 2004 campaign. Which is why they've got a bad reputation on the left. But the right is just as vocal against 527s, since it also covers folks like MoveOn.

I personally am of the opinion that more free speech is better than less. Which is why I like the concept of 527s, and why I support their right to speak. It's also interested to see who else is against 527s -- both political parties. Because before 527s were around, these "advocacy ads" came from the party machine, and were coordinated with the candidates. Meaning centralized control over the message. But I don't consider that a good thing at all -- I like the concept of free citizens being able to have their own voices heard in the political debate. Sure, it's messier (with a lot of mud being flung), but true freedom is always a little messy.

Of course, the concept of 527 groups isn't perfect, and could use some reform. Since they are not political parties, they don't have to make their donor lists public, meaning that they can be funded by wealthy individuals who can keep "their fingerprints" away from the public eye. George Soros (on the left) or Richard Mellon Scaife (on the right) can create so-called "astroturf" groups that give the appearance of being "grassroots" organizations but in reality are anything but. But making 527 donor lists transparent would be an easy fix to this problem (and one I would support).

Another complaint is that since it takes so much money to mount an effective ad campaign, that it's ludicrous to talk about this as some sort of "free speech" issue, when the "speech" clearly isn't "free," but in reality costs a lot of money. Well, that's true. But when has such "free speech" ever been "free" in America? There's no law that prevents anyone from going down to Central Park or The Mall in Washington, D.C., setting up a soapbox and giving political opinions to the world at large. That's "free" speech. For any other medium, ads cost money. This is a fact of life, and always has been, so I don't see the problem.

And today, if you have some harebrained crackpot political ideas and want to disseminate them to the public, you can make the ultimate egotistical statement to the world and register your name as an internet domain, set up a blog, and start spewing forth your laughably amateur point of view online, in the hopes of convincing any impressionable readers who happen by.

[Hey, wait a minute...]

Ahem. But seriously, the concept of 527s should be seen as a positive thing. Sure, there are groups that you will not agree with. There are groups which will anger you. But there will also be groups which do say things you want to hear. What I'm trying to say is there can be good and evil 527s, but the concept itself is a good thing on the whole. And as we've already seen from the swiftboating of John Kerry, it's hard to argue that they can be effective.

Like any political ad, though, a 527 ad has the possibility of backfiring in one way or another. The MoveOn "BetrayUs" ad is a good example. The wording of the ad became the story, and the point they wanted to make was kind of lost in the noise as a result. Ads can backfire even worse than that, if the public viewing them punishes who you are trying to help, by solidifying support behind them as a direct result of your ad.

Here are three recent ads which caught my eye for one reason or another. Whether you agree with them or not, it is interesting to keep tabs on this type of political ground war on the airwaves and newspaper pages. To be honest, the IRS code is thick, and I do not absolutely know that all three of these organizations is officially a 527 (they could be other designations, there are more than a few), but the general concept is the same for all of them.

WomenCount Political Action Committee

This PAC is supporting Hillary Clinton with full-page ads in newspapers such as the New York Times and USA Today. They may have been recently and hastily put together, since their political goal is such a specific one, and since they don't seem to have a webpage anywhere I could find. I did find a posting of the text of their ad on a blog, but have no way to verify its authenticity. From this ad, titled "Not So Fast," here is what they're calling for:

We cannot stand by as a cacophony of voices demand that she [Hillary Clinton] step aside to smooth the road for another.

. . .

We know that when women vote, Democrats win. Now it is the responsibility of our party to hear our voices and count all our votes.

We want Hillary to stay in this race until every vote is cast, every vote is counted, and we are convinced our voices are heard.

While I don't really think the ad will have much effect, and I think that the race is in effect over, I still fully support their right to spend their money in an attempt to convince others (superdelegates, I'm assuming) of their point.

Blue America PAC

Salon's Glenn Greenwald has the details on this story. A group calling itself Blue America PAC has a very targeted ad campaign they are running against a "Blue Dog" Democrat. Blue Dogs used to be called DINOs (for "Democrat In Name Only"), and are the conservative-to-moderate wing of the Democratic Party (if you think that's an oxymoron, you're behind the times). Many of the seats won in the 2006 election blowout by Democrats are much more conservative than some Democrats are used to. And some independent groups are trying to pull the party back to the left.

Blue America PAC is targeting Democrat Chris Carney, a member of the House from Pennsylvania. They're targeting him for supporting amnesty for the telecommunications companies for wiretapping Americans without the benefit of a warrant. Sounds good to me. Greenwald has the video ad, or you can check out their full-page newspaper ad to see what they're talking about.

The newspaper ad begins "You can't put a price on freedom, unless you're Rep. Chris Carney, that is." It goes on to say [emphasis is in original text]:

We sent Chris Carney to Congress to fight for our security and our freedoms. But instead of standing up for regular Pennsylvanians, Carney is serving the demands of his big corporate donors. He sold out the Constitution for tens of thousands in campaign contributions from the big phone companies who broke the law by letting the government spy on you, read your emails and record your phone calls -- all without warrants.

That's illegal, unconstitutional, and unethical. And it's un-American.

This is called "holding elected officials responsible for their votes," and is a good thing, whether you agree with the issue they're raising or not (for the record, I do). Elected politicians should have their feet held to the fire by the public for the way they vote. There should be consequences for them at election time when they sell their votes like this.

VoteVets.org

I saved the best one for last, though. VoteVets.org is going on a full-court press against John McCain and Texas' Senator John Cornyn for their opposition to Senator Webb's new GI Bill. Ads are running in Washington, D.C., and in Texas. Jon Soltz at Huffington Post has the full story, complete with video.

This is brilliant, because "supporting the troops" is supposed to be either a Republican strength, or at the very least a non-partisan issue. And yet McCain and Cornyn find themselves on the wrong side of it. Which is absolutely fair game to be pointed out to the public, in an effort to shame them into voting the right way during an election. And, if they don't, warning them that this will be an issue that will be used against them in the campaign.

This shows my larger point. Ads like these are an effective way for citizens to pressure lawmakers and candidates into coming down on one side of an issue or the other. Big Business and even Big Labor have enough millions to actually "lobby" Congress, but these smaller and not-as-well-funded groups show that you can have the same effect (for much less money) through purchasing a few advertisements here and there.

Which I equate to "more political voices being heard." Which -- as I said -- I consider a good thing.

-- Chris Weigant