It's Official: Campaign Finance Law Helps Republicans

WSJ ^ | 4-4-03 | Washington Wire

[StopDemocratsDotCom]

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."

[StopDemocratsDotCom]

did we put out foot in our mouth?

[ecomcon]

Nope. The ends do not justify the means.

[mabelkitty]

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.

[Dont Mention the War]

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.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Amen

[ArneFufkin]

We statist, Neo-Con Bushbot sellout RINOs figured this out early during the FR mass hysteria over the CFR passage/signing.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

We fought it because it's wrong and unconstitutional

. . . but not necessarily for the reasons adduced in court.

[Just mythoughts]

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.

[ccmay]

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

[WaterDragon]

Our freedom of speech is still being denied by that unconstitutional law. It was never about money.

[bucephalus]

"We fought it because it's wrong and unconstitutional."

I could not agree more. Thanks.

[Mr. Thorne]

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!

[Mr. Thorne]

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.

[Mr. Thorne]

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

= P

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[hobbes1]

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.

[Redleg Duke]

That's it, then. It isn't fair. Time to overturn it!

[wildbill]

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.