Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 20

San Jose Mercury / AP ^ | 12/29/03 | JOHN McCARTHY

[Valin]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Political party operating accounts, which allow the parties to spend money from undisclosed donations on party-building activities, are illegal under the new federal campaign law and ought to be shut down, Republican Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell says. However, a spokesman for Blackwell's own state party said the operating accounts aren't used on candidates and thus are perfectly legal. Blackwell said he has the solution: a bill that has been stuck in a Senate committee for nearly a year. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Randy Gardner, a Bowling Green Republican, would require disclosure of contributions to the accounts and specify how their money could be spent.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Campaign Finance Is Quasi-Reformed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048025/posts



Note: If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Valin]

Remember better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)


This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."


So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.


All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.


But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.


Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.


This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

[DustyMoment]

As we are starting to see, other than stifling the rights of ordinary Americans, CFR is already proving itself a dismal failure at stemming the flow of money to political campaigns. Those groups who want to donate money and run issue ads are finding ways around CFR via 527s and other means.

McCain-Feingold have accomplished what they wanted; they trampled on the Constitution, stifled our rights to be involved in the political process, created a ruling elite and guaranteed that those with deep pockets will always be able to find ways to funnel money into and control the political machinery.

This raises a few questions in my mind:
1) Having exempted nearly half of all income earners from federal taxes, does CFR also signal that the votes of ordinary Americans are equally insignificant? IOW, are we now being taken for granted (such as minority voters in the Dem party)?
2) Have the Robber Barons of days gone by evolved from private industry to the political sector?
3) Has voter apathy reached the point that Americans really don't care that the efforts of McCain & Co. have succeeded in eroding the rights granted to us by the Constitution?
4) Are we witnessing 1984 coming to life under a conservative president (albeit a few years late)?

[Valin]

Now I'm not a conspiracy guy, but your question are food for thought.

Those groups who want to donate money and run issue ads are finding ways around CFR via 527s and other means.

Yes let's by all means make it more complicated for the average person to get involved in the political system.

It's my opinion(freely given and worth just about that much) that where we are headed(if the "Common Cause types have their way) is federal funding of all elections. Of course you see their assumtion...
(private)money is the root of all evil in politics.
Money is a THING, and how can a THING be evil. It can be used for evil but that depends on the person using it.

[Eastbound]

"2) Have the Robber Barons of days gone by evolved from private industry to the political sector?"

I think migration would fit better, unless you were inferring that government itself has morphed into a private enterprise -- its cost of doing business and financial losses absorbed by taxing (over-pricing the product) the consumer -- us'ns. In either case, I would agree.

The sorry part is that most of us don't even use the 'product' (other than essential and legitimate functions of government) and are forced to pay for its use by others who contribute little or nothing to the cost of manufacuring those extra items -- those products labeled, 'Nanny' and 'Big Brother.'

"3) Has voter apathy reached the point that Americans really don't care that the efforts of McCain & Co. have succeeded in eroding the rights granted to us by the Constitution?"

Even though you inadvertantly erred in using the phrase, 'rights granted,' rather than 'rights guaranteed and protected,' you may have correctly described how the dumbed-down generation view the role of government and has accepted government's self-generated mandate to rule, rather than serve the people.

Looks like we are running out of remedies, and as some folks on the forum would like to say, for us to 'just shut up and take it.' ;>

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your implication that I would wish Americans to be silent about anything they disagree with is false. However, I do ferverently wish they would know what the hell they are talking about before opening their pie-holes. Almost every claim raised against this law by those opposed is totally false.

[Eastbound]

"Almost every claim raised against this law by those opposed is totally false."

Almost every? That would infer that some claims are true. Can we focus on those and see if they do, in fact, infringe on A1? And if they do, wouldn't that call for the repeal of CFR? Or do you think that even if the bill infringes just a little bit, we should keep it? Thanks for your comment.

[Valin]

Almost every claim raised against this law by those opposed is totally false.

Chapter and verse please.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't have time to make a laundry list when it has been throughly discussed but suffice it to say that our free speech rights have NOT been ended, that incumbents are NOT removed from criticism and that government officials are NOT immune from criticism. All these pieces of nonsense have been loudly proclaimed as the result of this law by those who don't know what they are speaking of.

Along with "the end of the Republic" "the destruction of the constitution" and other hysterical nonsense. All that was left out of the catalogue of falsehoods is that the CFR Act will give us all the Heartbreak of Psiriosis.

While I don't think much of the law, it appears to be essentially a case of p*ssing into the wind and not likely to accomplish its writers' intents. It will make NO significant difference in running elections other than a temporary impact upon soft money ads. My only desire in this regard is that the critics get it straight as to what they are criticizing and not speak falsely.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Every law that needs amendment should recieve it. I am not sure that there is anything in the law that needs to be changed because I don't think it will actually do anything significant. Any politician or political group with half a brain can easily circumvent the restrictions of this law to do or say ANYTHING they wish at ANY TIME merely by adopting the correct mechanism to do it.

Throwing the entire law out would not disturb me in the slightest nor would keeping it. It IS disturbing to have so many people hyperventilating and going into hysterics over something I see as essentially an irrelevency. Particularly when the things they are saying cause their upset are based upon incorrect interpretations.

[Eastbound]

"I am not sure that there is anything in the law that needs to be changed . . ."

Well, that's what we are trying to nail down and that is what all the discussion is about. Not whether or not it can be circumvented, but rather, should it have been written in the first place? Dissenting opinions say 'Nay!'

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps circumvent was not the right term for me to use rather should have said "conduct campaigns within the restrictions of the law."

[DustyMoment]

I'm curious. You claim there is nothing fundamentally wrong with CFR that needs changing, yet you haven't cited any specific examples of provisions in CFR that are harmless. Would you be so kind as to do so?

The rest of us opposed to this "beign law" (employing your interpretation) have cited specific parts of the law that we feel are unConstitutional or otherwise infringe on our "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

As my colleagues Eastbound and Valin have said if, as you claim, the law matters little or not at all and has no real effect on anything, then why have we paid our elected representatives while they spent time (on our dime) writing, discussing, re-writing and voting on something that is, essentially, an empty bag? Given what we pay Congressional and Senate Representatives, frittering their time away on our dime is a colossal waste of money . . . TAX money.

[DustyMoment]

No, circumvent was exactly correct; that's precisely what is going on as we . . . type!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Come on, look at the vast majority of the laws written and tell me that they were needed. I don't believe it. This one was written (like most) because someone thought it sounded good. What could be better than "getting politics out of the control of the rich and powerful?" Most people bought this description and polls indicated that they favored CFR. So this is what they get.

Just because I am unaware of any of these restrictions or things that need to be changed does not mean there are not some. Time will tell in that regard.

Not one word of this will infringe on your "life, liberty or pursuit of happiness." It does NOT stop critique of politicians merely requires changes in the method of doing so. It does NOT infringe on a free press since none of its provisions affect the press at any time. It DOES require a form of transparency so that the AFL-CIO can't run a litany of lies under an assumed name at the last moment when there is no chance to refute it. It does NOT stop campaign ads thus any impact on freedom of speech is minimal.

Congress has the authority under the express provisions of the Constitution to regulate elections, Article I, Section 4, paragraph 1. This law falls under that provision imo.

Why don't you tell me what it stops YOU from doing that you would wish to do?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Circumvention can be accomplished in legal and illegal ways. I in no way meant the illegal kind. Though I am sure the RATS are working on that as we type.