FYI, from my representative, Brad Carson (D-OK), co-sponsor of Shays Meehan:
Thank you for contacting me concerning the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me.
Campaign Finance Reform deals in large part with so-called hard and soft money. In general, the term "hard money" is used to refer to funds raised and spent according to the limits and disclosure requirements of federal election law. By contrast, "soft money" is used to describe funds raised and spent outside the federal election regulatory framework. The Campaign Finance Reform bill that passed the House does not prohibit political communication 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general as it has been portrayed to do. It merely declares that any mass communication follow similar disclosure requirements as a candidate's campaign committee is currently required to follow.
The Campaign Finance Reform Act, as it currently has been amended, would ban soft money -- donations to national political parties by corporations, unions and individuals. State parties permitted under state law to accept soft money would be prohibited from spending it on anything related to federal elections. Federal candidates would be prohibited from raising soft money. The bill would increase the amount of regulated hard money an individual could contribute to all federal candidates and parties in a single year from $25,000 to $37,500. It also would double to $10,000 the amount of hard money that individuals could contribute to state party committees to use in federal elections. Like McCain-Feingold, HR2356, would permit state and local parties to accept $10,000 donations and spend some of these soft-money contributions on voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities.
Labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their money on "electioneering communications," defined as radio or television ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. Nonprofit organizations, such as the National Rifle Association, Sierra Club, National Right to Life Committee, would be able to sponsor such ads as long as they used individual contributions rather than corporate or union funds, and made disclosures about who was donating the money that they were spending. The American public deserves to know who is spending money in the political process, just as they deserve to know whose money a candidate is spending in their campaign for office.
The measure also would prohibit foreigners from making contributions in federal, state or local elections. It would also clarify that it is illegal to raise or solicit contributions on federal property, bar federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, specify circumstances in which activities by outside groups or parties would be considered coordinated with candidates and provide for more timely disclosure of independent expenditures.
The Senate adopted an amendment, known unofficially as the "millionaire's amendment," that would allow individuals running against self-financed candidates to get larger contributions from individuals and political action committees. Legal limits on contributions would rise depending upon how much the self-financed candidate put into his or her effort.
The bill does not apply to internal communications of an association, corporation, or union. For example, the bill would not cover communications from the National Rifle Association, the National Right to Life Committee, or the AFL-CIO (or similar organizations) to members of their respective organization. It also does not apply to printed materials such as mailings, newspaper or magazine ads; it only addresses broadcast communications. Groups would not be required to disclose the names of of their donors for these communications and could continue producing voter guides.
I support removing the power that big money has in our process and the influence of special interest lobbyists who hold the legislative process hostage and support returning it to the individual citizen. However, I am not in favor of any legislation that limits the freedom of speech of any citizen or civic organization. This bill came before the House on February 13, 2002. I voted in favor of the final piece of legislation after the consideration of several amendments and very thoughtful deliberation.
Again, thank you for contacting me concerning campaign finance reform. Please do not hesitate to contact me concerning this or any other issue.
Have at it.
SCOTUS will shoot this albatross down, the traitors will be tarred and feathered in the next election.
"The 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence proved by their every deed
that they made no idle boast when they composed
the most magnificent curtain line in history.
"And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine providence,
we mutually pledge to each other our lives,
our fortunes and our sacred honor."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from Americans Who Risked Everything by Rush H. Limbaugh II is the father of Rush Limbaugh, notable Excellence in Broadcast radio talk show host.
© 2000 Rush H. Limbaugh II
Our Founding Fathers pledged their fortunes...money talked then, and it should talk just as much today to keep Americans free, living in liberty, and pursuing happiness. They knew it, we know it, tell Congress to remember it! There is no sacred honor in CFR!
