Democrats mock campaign finance reform-C F R Thread, Day 96

The Virginian-Pilot ^ | 3/14/04

[Valin]

A coalition of Democratic Party interest groups is forming a shadow organization to skirt McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms in pushing the presidential election of John Kerry, according to The Washington Post.

The apparatus would allow Democrats to collect from unregulated interest groups through the back door the huge, soft-money donations newly prohibited to political parties.

This is a shameful circumvention of the public consensus expressed through McCain-Feingold: a desire to dilute the tremendous influence of wealthy individuals, labor unions and corporations on American politics.

Kerry should repudiate the effort, and the Federal Election Commission should nail it for the outright subterfuge that it is.

No one expected this election cycle to be an easy one for Democrats, given the strictures of the new law. McCain-Feingold limits individual contributions in a federal political campaign to $2,000. Political action committees can give $5,000 to an individual candidate and $15,000 to a political party.

The most critical part of the law prohibits large, soft-money donations to political parties —- which often reached six or seven figures in past years. It also restricts advertising by political interest groups in the final days of a campaign.

Traditionally, Democrats have relied more on soft money than Republicans, who got more large-donation money but also had a broader donor base. The disadvantage is even more pronounced in a year when President Bush is gliding to his party’s renomination and Kerry had to deplete his treasury wrapping up the Democratic nomination.

Understandably, Democrats find Bush’s $100 million treasury daunting. But that’s no excuse for taking the easy way out. The cynical side-stepping of a hard-fought reform will taint whatever advantage comes their way.

This summer, the FEC is expected to issue new rules governing these unregulated groups, known as 527s by their IRS designation. They are defined as political committees whose central purpose is the election or defeat of federal candidates.

Common Cause correctly points out the FEC must be careful not to snag groups whose primary purpose is issue advocacy. The organization also believes that far less money will be donated to the 527s than went to the political parties, because the interest groups can’t so easily sell access to the candidates.

Even so, the rules banning soft money and limiting cash contributions ought to apply to any group with the primary purpose of electing candidates.

Having taken a bold step to sever the toxic link between donors and policy makers, a presidential election year is no time for backsliding.

[Valin]

"A lot of Democratic reformers say that Republicans who have opposed limits on campaign fund-raising in the past are being hypocritical in going after Ickes.

That's true but, I fear, shortsighted. My hunch is that in the long run the country will regret opening a new loophole in the campaign money system so soon after some of the more notorious of the old ones were shut down."

E. J. Dionne

http://www.indystar.com/articles/2/130000-3182-021.html

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Protect political speech
USATODAY / Yahoo News 3/16/04 R. Bruce Anderson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1098718/posts


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

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.
Fame Fortune could be yours.
If you don't Helen Thomas will move in with you!
And follow you everywhere you go.
And tell everyone you're her lovebunny!

[Valin]

First Amendment Restoration Act
Bill # H.R.3801

Original Sponsor:
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD 6th)

Cosponsor Total: 35
(last sponsor added 03/11/2004)
2 Democrats
33 Republicans

About This Legislation:
Washington, D.C. is often referred to as "Inside the Beltway" or "Belly of the Beast." A more appropriate reference, however, is "The Twilight Zone."

In 1961, there was an episode of "The Twilight Zone" titled "The Obsolete Man." In that episode, the government finds a librarian to be obsolete and sentences him to liquidation.

Has that eerie bit of 1961 fiction become a chilling reality today?
Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court have, with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold), found political speech by average American citizens to be...obsolete. What will government mandate next...liquidation?

On February 11, 2004, Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, along with several other members of The Liberty Caucus, introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act" (H.R. 3801). This legislation would restore Americans' First Amendment rights by repealing sections of the McCain-Feingold law that forbid issue-advocacy groups, such as The Liberty Committee, Gun Owners of America, American Conservative Union, Concerned Women of America and the National Rifle Association, to inform their members about important issues and votes relative to incumbent candidates during the 30 and 60 days before primary and general elections.

So during that 30-60 day period when the U.S. Congress takes a vote on abortion, immigration, gun control, United Nations, taxes, treaties, etc., we won't be able to tell you about it without committing a federal crime and risking jail time! Even a simple E-mail alert will violate the law!

McCain-Feingold, passed by Congress, signed by President Bush, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, muzzles the average American who doesn't have a high-priced lobbyist to represent his views in our nation's capital. Under the guise of "cleaning up our political process," incumbent politicians increase their job security by making it illegal for average Americans to participate.

The Liberty Committee strongly supports H.R. 3801 and encourages you to speak in favor of this critical legislation -- while you still can. Don't let the political elite make you "The Obsolete Man."
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/?bill=5269186

[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

[King Black Robe]

I fail to see how the Republicans are hypocritical at all on this one. We didn't want the law, but by gosh since it passed, we have every right to expect both sides to follow it. That's so RAT to think they can push through a law we do not want, break the law, and then squeal when we complain, calling US hypocritical because we never like the law in the first place.

[Valin]

Rule #1 Republicans are bad.
Rule #2 In the (unlikely) event that Republicans are found to not be bad, see Rule # 1.

If you keep these two rules in mind I think you'll find life is much simpler.

[King Black Robe]

LOL!

[MrB]

um... Republicans are bad, hmmmmkay?

you're right, it's the basis of all their arguments.

[Valin]

Back tonight.
Time to go torture some bunny rabbits.

[The_Eaglet]

If the Democrats don't like it, and the Republican's don't really like it even though they supported it (as has been said about Bush), why don't they repeal it????

They need a few nudges from the electorate to _at_least_ repeal the speech infringements.

[Gen. Longstreet]

From the article:

Having taken a bold step to sever the toxic link between donors and policy makers, a presidential election year is no time for backsliding.

From a post:

We didn't want the law, but by gosh since it passed, we have every right to expect both sides to follow it. That's so RAT to think they can push through a law we do not want, break the law, and then squeal when we complain, calling US hypocritical because we never like the law in the first place.

OK, first, where is the "toxic link" here? No donor gave any money to any policy maker. I thought the problem was the politicians taking large contributions.

Second, what makes you think the Democrats are breaking the law? I've read the bill, and it does three things: 1) it prohibits federal officials from soliciting soft money; 2) it prohibits national parties from taking any soft money, and state parties from using any soft money for certain types of activities, such as get out the vote drives and ads that promote federal candidates; and 3) it limits the abilitly of citizens to run ads that mention a candidate within 60 days of an election. How do any of these apply to what these Democrat groups are doing?

Don't get me wrong - I hate this bill. I think the Dems are hypocritical about "big money." But that doesn't mean that what they are doing is against the law. This is exactly what Senator McConnell and others (including many Freepers) said would happen if the law passed - were they wrong?

[King Black Robe]

They are breaking the law as sold. They are breaking the spirit of the law at minimum. Whether or not they are breaking the letter of the law only time and the mood of the courts on any given day will tell.

Speech should never have been regulated in the first place. Democrats think they are above the law.

[Gen. Longstreet]

They are breaking the law as sold.

True, lots of claims were made about how the law would get rid of all "soft money." But to anyone paying attention at the time, it was clear that that was not the case.

They are breaking the spirit of the law at minimum.

What does that mean, and why should we care? That's a liberal argument - the "spirit of the law." One reason we have laws is to limit the ability of government to harass and jail us. If you don't violate the law, they can't get you. They can't invoke some vague "spirit" to lock you up. Heaven help us if conservatives start falling for this "spirit of the law" bit.

Whether or not they are breaking the letter of the law only time and the mood of the courts on any given day will tell.

In other words, it is at a minimum premature to start saying they are "breaking" the law. I hope it's not Republicans who make the campaign finance law worse than it already is. If the Democrats are complying with the law, instead of fuming that the law should limit their speech still more, we ought to emulate them.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:
Starting the Climb Back up the Slippery Slope-C F R Thread, Day 98