Boundaries of new regulations are still being tested as politicians on both sides of the spectrum have called for everyone to play fair when it comes to funding campaigns.

New political organizations, dubbed “527 groups” because of their classification under the Internal Revenue Code, have been under attack from politicians across the board as working against campaign finance reforms intended to help curb the influence of big money in the election cycle.

The groups, which include America Coming Together and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, have been publicly denounced on many occasions by both presidential candidates.

“I believe 527s engaging in federal election activity should abide by the Federal Election Campaign Act and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law — be subject to federal contribution limits and disclosure requirements like all other political action committees,” President Bush said last week.

Democratic challenger John Kerry said he believed people, not money, determine how elections go and that it was important to curb contributions from special interest groups.

“Our government should work for all Americans, not just a powerful few,” Kerry said last week.

“That means we need to make sure that campaign contributions from wealthy interests and lobbyists don’t drown out the voices of regular Americans.”

One piece of legislation that was meant to help curb such interests was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly called the McCain-Feingold Act. The act was intended to stop the flow of non-federal money, or “soft money” donated to political parties, from influencing elections.

The bill also raised allowed individual amounts from $1,000 to $2,000 as an attempt to adjust for inflation, said Ken Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin, in a telephone interview with the Daily.

Mayer said it is hard to see how effective the law has been, since this is the first time it has applied to an election.

The act, he said, was initially drafted in 1996 by Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and wasn’t actually signed into law until 2002.

Different versions of the bill were introduced at nearly every congressional session between 1996 and 2001 until an amended version of the bill was accepted by both houses of Congress.

Since it has become a law, the bill has been met with much criticism.

“The groups that oppose it view it as excessive regulation on their ability to speak out about politics,” Mayer said. “There are constant questions.”

One concern is the number of new 527 groups that have popped up since the law was passed.

Steve Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research group that tracts money in politics and its effects on elections, said there are a number of reasons that the groups are controversial, but it’s mainly because they have gotten so involved in politics.

Weiss said many of the groups operate through a loophole in campaign finance law that allows unlimited contributions, which can be spent to help influence an election.

The groups function in a similar way to how a political action committee, or PAC, would operate, but they cannot promote a candidate, he said.

“A PAC can be much more direct in its appeal to voters,” he said. Mayer said a PAC is essentially the same as a 527 group, except it has registered with the Federal Election Committee as a political action committee, whereas a 527 has not.

“All PACs are 527s, but not all 527s are not PACs,” he said.

Under federal regulations, both a PAC and a 527 must disclose contributions and expenditures, but a PAC also has to adhere to contribution limits, he said.

“Essentially, if the 527 chooses to regulate itself, it will act like a PAC,” Weiss said.

— The Associated Press

contributed to this article.