Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Official: Campaign Finance Law Helps Republicans
WSJ ^ | 4-4-03 | Washington Wire

Posted on 04/04/2003 6:54:47 AM PST by StopDemocratsDotCom

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:48:37 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire says the new "campaign-finance law boosts Republicans' money edge. In first-quarter reports due soon at the Federal Election Commission, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is expected to show $7 million -- its biggest take of regulated 'hard money' for House candidates ever. But Republicans' House committee has raised $22 million. Democrats got more from unregulated 'soft money,' now banned."


(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: campaignfinance; cfr; cfrlist; gop
did we put out foot in our mouth?
1 posted on 04/04/2003 6:54:48 AM PST by StopDemocratsDotCom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
Nope. The ends do not justify the means.
2 posted on 04/04/2003 6:56:10 AM PST by ecomcon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
Democrats are so intelligent, gifted, and created. It's just so hard to outsmart them. Whatever will we do.

As for foot in mouth, I say not.

It will get thrown out, but by that time, the Dems won't have their base to fall back on. They blew them off because of the new law. It's a win/win.
3 posted on 04/04/2003 6:57:14 AM PST by mabelkitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
I recall a number of analysts and Freepers speculating at the time at the law would end up helping Republicans more than RATS. We fought it because it's wrong and unconstitutional.
4 posted on 04/04/2003 6:58:08 AM PST by Dont Mention the War
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
Amen
5 posted on 04/04/2003 6:59:08 AM PST by Leatherneck_MT (Can't stand rude behavior in a man.... Won't tolerate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
We statist, Neo-Con Bushbot sellout RINOs figured this out early during the FR mass hysteria over the CFR passage/signing.
7 posted on 04/04/2003 7:02:44 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
We fought it because it's wrong and unconstitutional
. . . but not necessarily for the reasons adduced in court.

8 posted on 04/04/2003 7:10:36 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mabelkitty
Don't thinks these lying liberals don't have a plan.

It's called HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING - By specifically sending money to cities, mayors, and states outside of control of the new Agency, the liberals are able to get our tax dollars out there to "union" guys for setting up elections.

All the while they are trying to tie President Bush's hand in having the new Agency preparing the "first responders".

So don't think that by pushing unconstitutional legislation to inhibit "free" people, they haven't kept their "get out the vote" thugs funded.

Remember who little "TOM TURKEY" spoke his venom to, it was state, county and local government representatives. (UNIONS)

The biggest fight over Homeland Security was about special "union" treatment and the socialist were not happy campers when Bush could not be push into their scheme. So they found a way around it by deciding themselves who would get funded. Hillary was bragging about millions sent to police or firefighters. (UNIONS)

Also remember what the Unions tried to pull with their so call shut out of dockworkers, that left so many business without receiving their orders and how hurt the independent truckers were.

There is no end to their evil designs and willingness to harm whomever gets in their way. If the lying liberals were really concerned about loss of money they would be squealing like stuck pigs, they want and have always wanted our tax dollars to fund their campaigns and elections.

They are the party of VOTE FRAUD and aren't a bit ashamed of it.


9 posted on 04/04/2003 7:17:41 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
This is a manifestation of what has long been known-- for all the liberals' bloviating about the Republicans being the party of the 'fat cats' and the Dems being for the 'little man', the reverse is actually true when it comes to donations.

Republicans have always had a distinct advantage among the $100 donors, the small businessmen, professionals, and retired folks.

The Democrats have long depended on the guilt-wracked limousine liberals to fork over the $10,000 and $100,000 donations. Fewer but larger contributions kept them in power for decades after they should have been marginalized.

Now that hard money rules the day, the armies of 'little people' who fear big government and put their money where their mouth is will help the Republicans bury the Democrats for generations to come.

-ccm

10 posted on 04/04/2003 7:21:42 AM PST by ccmay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
Our freedom of speech is still being denied by that unconstitutional law. It was never about money.
11 posted on 04/04/2003 7:43:55 AM PST by WaterDragon (Only America has the moral authority and the resolve to lead the world in the 21st Century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dont Mention the War
"We fought it because it's wrong and unconstitutional."

I could not agree more. Thanks.
12 posted on 04/04/2003 7:59:33 AM PST by bucephalus (Saddam Sleeps With the Camels - Non-consensually just like Roman Polanski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
True. But it does give a measure of bittersweet satisfaction to read this.

Yo, Dems, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
13 posted on 04/04/2003 8:07:44 AM PST by Mr. Thorne (Inter armes, silent leges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76
And, to my mind, the fact that it HURTS their party may lead to the striking of this law in the future. Because, when it comes to the DNC, it really is all about the money.
14 posted on 04/04/2003 8:09:32 AM PST by Mr. Thorne (Inter armes, silent leges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
Why, son, everythings OUR fault anyway. Didn't they teach you that in Conservative School?

= P
16 posted on 04/04/2003 8:17:06 AM PST by Mr. Thorne (Inter armes, silent leges)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: *CFR List
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
17 posted on 04/04/2003 8:19:45 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TonyRo76; Leatherneck_MT; Dont Mention the War; WaterDragon; bucephalus; All
O.K. I am going to try to explain this one more time. I will type as slowly as I can.

Yes, the Bill is Unconstituional. Clearly. However, does the Veto of a Bill make the underlying Unconstitutional ISSUE die?

The Obvious answer is No.

That is what this has always been about. The Dumbocrats thought they could continue to Browbeat the political right, knowing that this issue would never become law.

They would continue to rake in obscene amounts of soft money, and yell about the other side getting hard money, which at least comes from Individuals, knowing the Public won't make the distinction.

Then The media Jumped in as well, for all the onbvious reasons (favortism of the Left, increased media Power...etc)

At the End of the Day, all a Veto does is keep this issue alive.

Signing the Bill on the other hand, does many things.

It send the Issue Before SCOTUS where it will be declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL, killing it.

And along the way, we pick up an enormous cash advantage, helping to cement our position, and pick up ground against the left.

Get it?

Winning all the battles, and the war by feigning defeat, is Chess style strategy.

It's time we left the Checkers for the other side.

P.S.

Considering it was common knowledge that (r)s hold a Large hard money advantage over (d)s....can you imagine the absolute sinking dread they felt, when W put pen to paper, on that parchment?

Think about that.Revel in it.

18 posted on 04/04/2003 9:40:36 AM PST by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
That's it, then. It isn't fair. Time to overturn it!
19 posted on 04/04/2003 9:41:39 AM PST by Redleg Duke (Stir the pot...don't let anything settle to the bottom where the lawyers can feed off of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
This is rich--and not Mark Rich. Remember we got the Dems to raise the hard money level from 1000 to 2000 as part of the deal to make the bill palatable to some moderate Republicans. Hard money is our advantage because we have a lot of hard money small contributors.

I refuse to believe that Mitch McConnel is smart enought to have planned this--luring them into making concessions--while knowing their fund raising would be hurt the most.

Noooo. Republicans aren't that smart.
20 posted on 04/04/2003 10:22:22 AM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76
In the Great Chess vs. Checkers Debate, the Political Left is still mastering Tiddly Winks.
23 posted on 04/04/2003 11:00:13 AM PST by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: TonyRo76; hobbes1; wildbill; All
1. I do not think this bill will help Republicans in the long run. It inflates our money advantage in the short run because we control the White House and Congress, and have more small donors. But it costs a lot of money to raise money in small amounts. The Republican cash-on-hand advantage is much less than the raw amounts raised would suggest. Meanwhile, the Democrats will benefit tremendously from the get out the vote efforts of unions and the issue broadsides from huge foundations such as Ford and Pew, which aren't covered. In other words, our monetary advantage may increase, but as raising money gets harder, overall it will help the Dems, who have more non-monetary advantages thanks to unions, foundations, and a national media that, despite Fox and all, is still basically left wing.

2. I have said a hundred times in this forum, it is extremely unlikely that the entire McCainFeingold bill will be thrown out by the Supreme Court. That is probably less likely than the possibility that the Court will uphold the entire thing. Wake up and smell the coffee! Since 1996, every single campaign finance decision from the Supreme Court has gone against freedom and in favor of regulation. The most likely result is that some parts will be struck down, but key provisions of the bill will stand.

3. I have no idea if Senator McConnell had some crafty ploy up his sleeve, but I do think that the bill that passed was not nearly as bad for Republicans as past bills, and McConnell probably knew that. There may be a time when, if you face overwhelming force, you surrender the battlefield when you can best make your escape to fight another day. Perhaps that is what happened here.
25 posted on 04/04/2003 4:34:54 PM PST by Rensselaer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: StopDemocratsDotCom
There is much more about this law that is bad for us than raising money. I wonder how the court challenge is going...
26 posted on 04/04/2003 4:43:53 PM PST by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rensselaer
There is a flaw in your argument.

But it costs a lot of money to raise money in small amounts.

Conventionally yes, because you are talking about fund raising efforts. However, that impacts the other side with more severity, because we have a larger donor base in Place, which negates the Raising aspect. It is more like Collecting....

27 posted on 04/09/2003 10:52:10 AM PDT by hobbes1 ( Hobbes1TheOmniscient® "I know everything so you don't have to" ;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson