FEC head backs interest group freedom-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 66

Contra Costa Times / Washington Post ^ | 2/16/04 | Thomas B. Edsall

[Valin]

WASHINGTON - Defying Republican Party demands to strike down the plans of a network of pro-Democratic political committees, Federal Election Commission chairman Bradley Smith now argues that these committees should remain free to raise and spend large contributions known as "soft money."

Smith's argument, spelled out in a 37-page proposal to his five FEC colleagues, sharply increases the likelihood that new, pro-Democratic groups with multimillion-dollar budgets will become significant forces in the 2004 election and become what amounts to a "shadow" Democratic Party.

One of the new groups, America Coming Together, has already raised $12.5 million toward an election-year goal of $95 million.

Such liberal donors as financier George Soros and Progressive Corp. chairman Peter B. Lewis have already donated $6.5 million and $3.5 million, respectively, to pro-Democratic organizations.

The Republican National Committee, which would not take such action without the blessings of the Bush White House, has called on the FEC to rein in the Democratic, and, presumably, pro-Republican groups that are likely to be formed in reaction to the Democratic drive.

After opposing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in 2002 when it was enacted and later before the Supreme Court, the RNC recently wrote: "It is now incumbent upon the FEC to not sanction the undermining and evasion of (the McCain-Feingold law) through the activities of newly formed 527 organizations dedicated to electing or defeating specific federal candidates."

The new groups planning to spend as much as $300 million, most of it "soft money," in 2004 are known as 527s for the section of the tax code they fall under.

Smith, writing a proposed response to a request for an advisory opinion on the legality of many activities 527 groups plan to conduct, contended that the McCain-Feingold law is aimed at political parties, and "does not apply to the regulation of political entities outside these specific provisions."

Smith, a Republican appointee and a critic of campaign finance regulation in his academic writings, cited the Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold.

(snip) They wrote that Congress' intent in enacting McCain-Feingold was to ban "soft money solicited, received and directed and spent by political parties and federal elected officials. ... The law did not aim similar restrictions at political organizations or tax-exempt groups."

(snip) Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., have taken the opposite view. In Senate floor statements, the two called for tough regulation of the 527 organizations.

The prospect that the FEC could regulate the 527s has alarmed tax-exempt organizations and charities, which often become involved in issues and public debates.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Aldermen approve public financing of mayoral campaigns-
New Haven Register 2/13/04 Angela Carter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1078582/posts?page=1



If you want on/off this Campaign Finance Reform ;ist please let me know.

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know
It's fun, it's easy, it build strong bodies 12 way, it gets rid of those "unsightly" stains, And is guaranteed to improve your tan. 100% fat free.

[Valin]

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



Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


Note if you are interested in more on this please contact Valin or Congressman Billybob

[Gen. Longstreet]

So,is Smith stupid or principled? Should conservatives fight a rear guard action to protect as much of our First Amendment as possible, or use the liberals' weapon (CFR) against them before they can use it against us? Does anyone doubt for a minute that if it were conservative groups in danger, the Dems would pile on?

[steve50]

The republicans are in a bind. Both parties want this incumbent protection act, but the damage it will cause in loss of voter support will be almost completely suffered by the republicans. Should be fun watching this play out.

[King Black Robe]

More self-inflicted ugliness. Each side wants "Rules for thee, but not for me." Our constitution was designed by wise geniuses and is now being handled by embezzles and maroons (Bugs Bunny language for imbeciles and morons. Fitting for this cartoon crowd).

[dakine]

Smith is principled...

[Valin]

Part of the problem is the GOP is much better at raising hard money, and the dems at soft money.

[Valin]

I don't doubt that they would.
He is just following the law as written.
Now I don't like these 527s anymore than you do, but they are (apparently) legal.

[steve50]

Part of the problem is the GOP is much better at raising hard money, and the dems at soft money.

Not much doubt about that but the soft money goes directly to the free speech issue. It's ban isn't playing out well with many traditional republican voters.

[Valin]

Personally I love to see us get rid of the whole hard/soft money distinction that came in after watergate.
They keep trying to fix the problem when the problem is there is no problem. It only makes things worse.


Back later tonight.

[Eastbound]

Bttt!

[Congressman Billybob]

The title of this article is grossly misleading. This is a memo from ONE of six members of the Federal Election Comission urging that a multi-million dollar loophole be created in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act. However, even if this patent hypocrisy becomes the FEC rule, it would NOT end the TV ad ban contained in the CFR law itself.

This is another example of the Nixon Rule. "If two wrongs don't make a right, try three." No matter how much lipstick you put on it, McCain-Feingold is still a pig.

John / Billybob

[The_Eaglet]

Not much doubt about that but the soft money goes directly to the free speech issue. It's ban isn't playing out well with many traditional republican voters.

I doubt that third parties or independent think tanks are thrilled about it, either.

[Gen. Longstreet]

Well now, what would you have Smith do? I don't take it that he can simply urge (at least not with any success) that he and the other commissioners just ignore the 60 day ad ban. I mean, that's pretty specific, and even if he were inclined to refuse to enforce it, I can't imagine the others would join him. The provisions regarding these 527 groups more generally, on the other hand, seem to be an area of law where the law is gray, and Smith is coming down on the side of freedom, no?

Why would you, of all people, call that a "loophole." And is he opening a "loophole," or merely fighting efforts to extend the law even beyond that which Congress passed?

[Congressman Billybob]

I call this a loophole because it allows tens of millions of dollars in "soft money" to flow into politics, even though the alleged point of the whole d*mned "reform" law was to stop the "soft money." My theory is quite simple: if a law is horrible, it should be as horrible as possible to develop the fastest and strongest reaction against it.

Besides, I am consistent in saying that playing games with the First Amendment are wrong, regardless of who does it and why.

John / Billybob

[Gen. Longstreet]

Ah, but whom is playing games? Is your position that once government does something stupid, everyone should throw up their hands rather than ameliorate it where they can? In that case, should small government conservatives ever serve in government?

As for your philosophy that a law should be as horrible as possible, do you favor a return to 90% income tax rates to spark a revolt against the income tax? Do you think that Medicare should be expanded to expose the evils of government intervention in health care? I suspect that that is not really an approach that you apply with any rigidity.

Meanwhile, the collateral damage of such an approach, when applied, is quite high. I congratulate you and respect your willingness to risk criminal penalties to oppose this bill. Most of your fellow citizens will be unwilling to do that. The Soviet Union was about as awful as one could imagine, and it took over 70 years to replace it (not to mention millions of deaths). Campaign finance is perhaps not so draconian, but do you really want to be sending innocents to jail, and having the bureaucrats expand the reach of the law? I am not sure that your theory works well in practice.

[Congressman Billybob]

Dear General,

My crededntials as an opponent of Campaign Finance "Reform" are unassailable. I wrote one of the briefs in the Supreme Court against this law.

I was only writing against hypocrisy, in this thread. That's all.

John / Billybob

[Gen. Longstreet]

My crededntials as an opponent of Campaign Finance "Reform" are unassailable. I wrote one of the briefs in the Supreme Court against this law. I was only writing against hypocrisy, in this thread. That's all.

I don't want to prolong this too much further, but I certainly don't question your credentials. Heck, you're out there every day vowing to risk a criminal charge to fight the law. You're a hero, and I'm not kidding when I say that.

But I'm just trying to find the hypocrisy here. It strikes me that there is nothing hypocritical about the FEC giving the statute a narrow construction - indeed, that is what we should want them to do, isn't it? It may be hypocritical for Democrats to want a narrow construction of a law they championed, especially after all their wailing about "big money," but it doesn't strike me that this article is really about them.

Anyhoo, go get 'em. We're definitely on the same side, here.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link