The ad is a product of Vets for Freedom. They call themselves "a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." This wounded veteran featured has a scathing message for Barack Obama.
The Vets for Freedom's mission is to "educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq," and they "support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain."
The organization is a PAC. To see how a PAC is different from a 527, read more.
The FEC only requires a 527 group to file regular disclosure reports if it is a political party or if it advocates the election or defeat of a federal candidate or puts out electioneering communications.
A PAC raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions specifically for electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. Most PACs represent business (like Microsoft) labor (like the Teamsters) or ideological interests (Emily's List or the NRA).
Do you think there's any difference in result between the efforts of a 527 and a PAC? Even though a 527 can't expressly advocate for a candidate, could the outcome be the same? Should they have to abide by the same rules as a PAC?