Judge Sets Dates for Lawsuit Against FEC-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 31

Yahoo News / AP ^ | 1-8-03 | SHARON THEIMER

[Valin]

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has asked for written arguments and responses from both sides in a case that accuses federal election officials of opening loopholes in the new campaign finance law.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, moving the case forward after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upheld most of the new regulations, ordered written arguments by Feb. 27 and responses to opponents' claims by March 31.

At issue are the case's merits and whether the two lawmakers suing the Federal Election Commission Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass. — have legal standing to challenge the commission's interpretation of the law. Shays and Meehan are trying to overturn several commission rules telling political players how it will enforce the new law.

Those include FEC rules on the law's ban on the use of corporate, union and unlimited contributions — known as soft money — in federal elections. Shays and Meehan are also challenging the commission's reading of restrictions on the use of corporate and union money for political ads and on coordination among campaigns, interest groups and political parties on election spending.

The lawmakers argue the FEC has weakened the law's restrictions and that it exceeded its authority. The FEC contends Shays and Meehan lack legal standing to challenge the rules and that the commission's interpretation of the law is appropriate.

Kollar-Kotelly has not yet decided whether she will give each side a chance to argue at a court hearing, or will rule based on the written arguments alone. The Washington judge set the case schedule Wednesday.

The Supreme Court last month upheld most of the law, including its soft money ban and political advertising and coordination restrictions.

[Valin]

And this from Co.

Keeping accounts upfront
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1881704,00.html

Efforts for meaningful campaign finance reform in Colorado received a boost this week when Secretary of State Donetta Davidson nixed the idea of allowing lawmakers to set up office accounts.

It would have allowed political office-holders to accept unlimited donations to cover "office" expenses. Davidson had included the provision in a working draft of rules needed to implement Amendment 27, the campaign finance reform law approved by voters in 2003.

Officials would have had to disclose the donors and amounts only once each year, in mid-January - after an election. And they would never have to disclose how they spent the money.

The proposal exploited a dangerous loophole in Amendment 27, which caps contributions for statewide races from both individuals and political committees and sets voluntary spending totals. It also would have defied the intent of voters, who twice have passed campaign finance reform measures. (The legislature gutted the first law, passed in 1996.)

The proposal was fraught with problems, including the fact it further tilted the playing field toward incumbents.

But Davidson wisely listened to the public and kept the provision out of the final rules. Her office was flooded with e-mails from worried Coloradans.

"I think it's a terrific victory for every Coloradan that supported Amendment 27 and supports campaign finance reform," says Pete Maysmith of Colorado Common Cause, which helped write the law. "This was a clear attempt to do an end-run around the contribution limits and it deserved to be yanked."

The Post opposed Amendment 27, mainly on the grounds that it was a constitutional amendment - meaning its 4,500 words were added to an already cluttered constitution. It's nearly impossible to tinker with amendments and close loopholes without another election.

The idea for office accounts first came up during the last legislative session but was killed by fair-minded lawmakers. Lawmakers should think twice before resurrecting the idea again this spring.

If politicians can't keep their offices running on the money they get from the state, they either need to re-evaluate their expenses, or the state needs to increase their stipends.

[Support Free Republic]

Be part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Make a donation!

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Campaign finance reform changes the rules of engagement
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1054611/posts?page=1



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

[Valin]

HOORAY For John!

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



Back later tonight.

[TruthShallSetYouFree]

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly

Try saying her full name three times, fast.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[The_Eaglet]

The FEC contends Shays and Meehan lack legal standing to challenge the rules and that the commission's interpretation of the law is appropriate.

They do have legal standing to repeal the bill if they would have the guts to undo the trouble they have been making.

[DustyMoment]

"Shays and Meehan are trying to overturn several commission rules telling political players how it will enforce the new law.

Those include FEC rules on the law's ban on the use of corporate, union and unlimited contributions — known as soft money — in federal elections. Shays and Meehan are also challenging the commission's reading of restrictions on the use of corporate and union money for political ads and on coordination among campaigns, interest groups and political parties on election spending."

I'm confused. Aside from eroding our Constitutional rights, weren't these SUPPOSED to be among the issues that CFR was supposed to address?? And, if the FEC is upholding them, isn't that what they are supposed to do?

[DustyMoment]

I received this from my tax attorney:


2004 Election Issue !!GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years.

Our Senators and Congressmen/women do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it.

You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan.

In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan.

For all practical purposes their plan works like this:

When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die.

Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.

For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives.

This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries.

Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives.

Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH....

This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds;

"OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"!

From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.

Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits!

Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made.

That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congresscritters. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve.

How many people can YOU send this to?

Keep this going clear up thru the 2004 election!! We need to be heard

[Rensselaer]

"Shays and Meehan are trying to overturn several commission rules telling political players how it will enforce the new law. Those include FEC rules on the law's ban on the use of corporate, union and unlimited contributions — known as soft money — in federal elections. Shays and Meehan are also challenging the commission's reading of restrictions on the use of corporate and union money for political ads and on coordination among campaigns, interest groups and political parties on election spending."

I'm confused. Aside from eroding our Constitutional rights, weren't these SUPPOSED to be among the issues that CFR was supposed to address?? And, if the FEC is upholding them, isn't that what they are supposed to do?

Shays and Meehan are complaining that the rules adopted by the FEC to implement the law are not restrictive enough. For example, the FEC passed a rule that the ban on ads "broadcast" within 60 days of an election didn't include the internet in the meaning of "broadcast." Shays and Meehan think it should. Or the law prohibits members of congress from soliciting soft money contributions. The FEC passed a rule saying it's OK for a congressman to be the featured guest at a soft money fundraiser so long as he doesn't ask for money - Shays and Meehan wanted to prohibit a lawmaker from even appearing at such an event.

[Congressman Billybob]

This lawsuit is not good news; it is bad news. Take a look at the two Plaintiffs in the case. One is a fire-breathing Democrat, the other is a squish Republican. They are trying to tighten the law, slightly, not loosen it.

I give the suit a 50-50 chance of success, and a 0% chance of its having any significant meaning if it does succeed.

Congressman Billybob

Click here to stick a thumb in the eye of CFR, "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob."

[Valin]

I really am in the wrong line of work!

[DustyMoment]

Thanks for the clarification. The way I understood the article, it sounded as though Shays and Meehan didn't want those provisions enforced.

Makes more sense, now.

[DustyMoment]

We're ALL in the wrong line of work!!

I think one of the things we should ask our elected representatives at every opportunity is why they exempt themselves from laws and programs that they want to impose on the rest of us? That was one of the hallmarks of the Clinton healthcare program - the Clintons and the members of Congress were automatically exempted from it.

If it's good for the goose, why isn't it just as good for the gander?

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:

As usual, the rich have a campaign finance loophole-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 32