Posted on 04/05/2006 6:41:16 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday to crack down on independent political groups that spent nearly a half-billion dollars in the 2004 election, most of it trying to help Democrats.
The measure would impose limits on individual contributions to those groups and require them to register with the Federal Election Commission. On a largely party-line vote of 218-209, the House sent the bill to the Senate where it faces an uncertain fate.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Congress may want to examine campaign financing in advance of the November congressional elections -- but it should not zero in on just one component.
"If we're going to take a look at everything here and have a real good, in-depth look at campaign financing again, I'm happy to do that, but not cherry-pick what somebody doesn't like," Reid said.
While Republicans control the Senate, holding 55 of 100 seats, Democrats could try to stop the bill with a procedural roadblock.
Independent political advocacy groups became increasingly popular after Congress passed a campaign finance bill in 2002 designed to reduce the influence of money in politics by banning unlimited corporate, union and individual contributions to national parties.
But there are no limits on individual donations to independent political groups known as 527s, named for the part of the tax code that regulates them.
"All we are trying to do is close a loophole," said Rep. David Dreier (news, bio, voting record) of California, a member of the Republican leadership.
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, denounced the bill, saying, "They (Republicans) are trying to gag their opponents, and further empower their supporters."
Many conservative groups, including Club for Growth and the National Taxpayers Union, broke ranks with Republicans and opposed the bill. They charged it would reduce free speech.
Several campaign-reform groups, including Public Citizen and Common Cause, back the measure.
In the 2003-04 election cycle, independent advocacy groups active in federal elections raised $426 million -- $321 million by pro-Democratic groups and $104 million by pro-Republican ones, according to the Campaign Finance Institute.
The House-passed bill would impose an annual limit of $5,000 for an individual to give to a group for its federal election activities.
Those groups are already prohibited from coordinating activities with candidates or political parties.
Philanthropist George Soros gave millions of dollars to advocacy groups in a failed 2004 bid to unseat President George W. Bush in 2004.
A conservative advocacy group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, made its mark by challenging the war record of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
Rep. Marty Meehan (news, bio, voting record), a Massachusetts Democrat, joined Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), a Connecticut Republican, in sponsoring the bill to clamp down on those groups. They were chief sponsors of the 2002 campaign finance measure as well.
"Congress today affirmed that 527 groups have a right to organize and to be involved in elections, but that they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else," Meehan said.
Just seven Democrats joined 211 Republicans in voting for the bill, while 190 Democrats, 18 Republicans and one independent opposed it.
It's not like we are children who have to be kept out of adult discussions.
Good. I hope Codepink and Moveon go down in flames.
This is a silly law. If the law funds their groups to the hilt, good for them. Let's fund ours and get the party started.
Eliminate ALL restrictions and only require FULL DISCLOSURE. But that would take guts.
No money or anything else of value may be given to any current federal office holder or a candidate seeking a federal office unless the individual providing the money or thing of value is legally registered to vote for the federal office holder or candidate seeking a federal office.
To be factually accurate he could not get rid of fillibusters. He doesn't have the votes. He could of tried to get rid of fillibusters on Judical appointments. He may of had the votes for that but the Consitutional Option is limited by Senatoral short sightedness to Judical Fillibusters, not all of them.
Perhaps you are right. I hate this creeping Socialism the DC Old Boys club lead by McCain is trying to impose on us.
No kidding, this is ridiculous! Republicans are once again acting more and more like democrats everyday, trying to chip away at our freedoms and I'M SICK OF IT!
Oooh, I like that!
Throw out the "unless" and add no nuthin' to any officer holder's family and business partners.
Hey I got an idea! How about a law that says congress shall make no law restricting free speech? Oops I forgot. That's the dead part of our living Constitution now.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Remove restrictions only with full disclosure. It is important to know who is trying to buy the election.
How do you "buy" an election?
Name something that isn't.
Either that or the House will vote to start advocating crack as an aid to understanding current legislation..
"its hard out there fo' a legislation PimP"..
I like your phrase "the dead part of our living Constitution." That's exactly what the "living Constitution" advocates want -- they want to kill just about all of our "living Constitution."
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.