MoveOn.org and the NY Times

Regarding the post below and the huge discount the New York Times gave MoveOn to run the Petraeus ad:

The point is being made here and there that this contstitutes an in-kind political contribution to MoveOn (actually to MoveOn.org Political Action).

MoveOn.org Political Action is a Political Action Committee, which is regulated by the Federal Elections Commission. It is NOT a 527 regulated by the IRS. The latter can accept unlimited contributions; the former, not.

PACs may not accept contributions from corporations. Further, they may not accept contributions in excess of $5,000. The value of the discount MoveOn received was on the order of $100,000.

So did the Times and MoveOn violate campaign finance laws -- the Times by making a corporate and illegally large contribution, MoveOn by accepting it?

I don't have the answer to that. My guess is that, especially because this is issue and not electioneering advertising, the Times is free to sell space at whatever price it wants.

But I'm working to nail that down.

UPDATE: Oh my. From the FEC's "Campaign Guide for Nonconnected Committees" (beware, that's a big pdf; cite is from page 16; itals, for some reason, in the original):

DISCOUNTS

If a corporation or labor organization sells goods or services to a political committee at a price below the usual or normal charge, a prohibited contribution results in the amount of the discount. 100.52(d). A reduced price is not considered a contribution, however, if it is offered by the vendor in the ordinary course of business and at the same amount charged to nonpolitical clients. See, e.g., AO 1989-14.

It seems to me that the price the NYT charged to Freedom's Watch, as well as the price they quoted the Washington Times, puts the discount out of the range of the ordinary course of business. (See this Hot Air post for links.)

UPDATE: My second commenter has it right -- this is a prohibited contribution only in relation to federal elections. But it's also curious that the Times seems to be going out of its way to ensure everyone that this is indeed the normal course of business, which could be very expensive for the Times. New buzzword for Times advertisers: "Standby."

UPDATE: Well, maybe I had it right in the first update. Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia is calling for an investigation into whether the discount was illegal.

FINAL UPDATE: I'll give Clark Hoyt, the Times' ombudsman, the final word (my italics):

The ad infuriated conservatives, dismayed many Democrats and ignited charges that the liberal Times aided its friends at MoveOn.org with a steep discount in the price paid to publish its message, which might amount to an illegal contribution to a political action committee. In more than 4,000 e-mail messages, people around the country raged at The Times with words like “despicable,” “disgrace” and “treason.”