Skip to comments.John Kerry/Democrats violating Campaign Finance Laws???
Posted on 03/10/2004 8:12:42 AM PST by TexasRainmaker
On March 22, 2002, during the debate over McCain-Feingold, John Kerry said, The American people have become almost numb to these kinds of staggering figures, and they have come to expect fund-raising records to be broken with each election cycle.
He continued, What is far worse for our democracy is that the public also believes that this money buys access and influence that average citizens don't have.... We can't go on leaving our citizens with the impression that the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook. source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4487131/
What a difference a year and a nomination makes.
George Soros, John Kerrys own wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry and other donors to the Democratic 527s are wielding influence through their checkbooks, hoping that their money will mobilize enough average citizens to vote against Bush. A related Democratic 527 group, the Media Fund, begins airing $4.5 million worth of TV ads against Bush on Wednesday.
So John Kerry thinks its harmful to our democracy to allow the wealthy to buy access and influence unattainable by the average folks, while his wife works in conjunction with billionaires to fund broadcast attacks on his opponent. Nice.
Heres why Kerry is so adamant to tell Americans, do as I say, not as I do.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 bans the national party committees from raising so-called soft money, restricts individuals and interest groups from using soft money to finance ads during election periods and doubles the amount of money a person can give directly to a candidate to $2,000 (hard money).
Hard money is the term commonly used to describe direct contributions to politicians campaign committees and party committees that are limited under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Under the law, individuals may give $2,000 directly to a candidate over an election cycle-$1,000 for the primary, and $1,000 for the general election.
Soft money encompasses any contributions not regulated by federal election laws. The exemption to old FEC regulations regarding soft money was made to encourage "party-building" activities which benefit the political parties in general, but not specific candidates. Technically, soft money contributions are supposed to be used only for state and local political activities such as voter registration, get-out-the-vote drives, and bumper stickers and for such generic party-building activities as TV ads supporting the Democratic and Republican platforms, but not naming specific candidates.
Under the BCRA, the television advertising restriction means that special interest groups cannot air advertisements that refer to a federal candidate 60 days before an election (30 days before a primary), unless the ads are paid with hard money (money given under the contribution limit provision). They can still, though, spend money freely before the time window or on ads that dont refer to specific candidates.
Heres a few things to consider for the average American:
The Republicans raise large amount of money, most of which is considered hard money, which means its being raised by many individuals contributing the maximum $2,000 each. Compare that with the Democrats using a few billionaires funneling large sums into 527 organizations to air ads and campaign against Bush.
The BCRA prohibits groups from advertising in the media 30 days before a primary, or naming specific candidates, unless its paid for with hard money.
Leaders of the group, Peaceful Tomorrows, organized a concerted effort last week to campaign against Bushs use of his own political ads. This, in and of itself, was a form of campaigning. In addition, Moveon.org has aired ads critical of Bush (and naming him specifically) in the last few weeks, clearly within the 30 day window of a primary.
Its easy to see the problem. While Republicans are raising hard money from honest, hard-working American citizens, Democrats are out using million-dollar donations from billionaires (including the candidates WIFE) funneled through activist organizations in an attempt to skirt the laws.
So lets go back and revisit John Kerrys own statements.
What is far worse for our democracy is that the public also believes that this money buys access and influence that average citizens don't have.... We can't go on leaving our citizens with the impression that the only kind of influence left in American politics is the kind you wield with a checkbook.
Youre right John Kerry. And youre a hypocrite that defines the problem with our system.
Ain't it the truth?
Of course not. Laws apply only to Republicans, not democrats.
George Soros exposedWhile Mr. Soros seeks to portray himself as a mainstream philanthropist who cares deeply about people, the record reveals him as an arch-typical limousine liberal who lives according to standards far different than those he seeks to impose on others... Now that he's a billionaire, he says: "I consider the threat from the laissez-faire side more potent today than the threat from totalitarian ideologies."
by David N. Bossie
November 24, 2003
When it comes to military intervention, Mr. Soros has been far from consistent. He praises Bill Clinton's decision to use military force to topple the regime of Slobodan Milosevic despite the absence of United Nations backing. But when it comes to the Bush presidency, he declares himself profoundly opposed to the Bush administration's policies, not only in Iraq but altogether...
But nowhere is Mr. Soros' hypocrisy more transparent than his recent double take on campaign finance reform. Beginning in the mid-1990s and continuing through the enactment of the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, Mr. Soros was one of the leading proponents of the campaign finance reform. According to a report published by the American Conservative Union Foundation, he funneled millions in contributions to the reform movement. In 1998, for example, Mr. Soros funneled more than $600,000 to an outfit called Arizonans for Clean Elections, which was the main organization behind a drive to create public financing for Arizona state candidates. Mr. Soros support accounted for more than 70 percent of the group's funding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.