Rescuing system next target of reformers-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 34

SF Chronicle ^ | 12/22/03 | JIM ABRAMS

[Valin]

Rescuing an enfeebled presidential election funding system before 2008 by enlarging the pot of matching funds for primaries and giving the money to candidates earlier is emerging as the next goal of finance reformers.

Fresh off a victory this month in the Supreme Court, the lawmakers who wrote the new limits on campaign donations and restrictions in place for the 2004 elections see an urgent need in shoring up the system for providing government money to campaigns.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
MCCAIN-FEINGOLD LAW LEAVES WASHINGTON A DESERTED SMOKING RUIN
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1056231/posts



Note If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Valin]

HOORAY For John!

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

[skinkinthegrass]

...The Anti-Constsutionalists are @ it again....some will say the USSC approved CFR, they may have just used the "get it out of our hair" Technique...like "the Dred Scott" decision, 2nd Ad. fight "RTKABA" and the abortion tangle, the right to murder kids, b/c "its' convenient" mindset.

[Valin]

I do wonder if they were sending a message to the other two branches that it's not the USSCs job to clean up their messes.

[skinkinthegrass]

BINGO! :))

[skinkinthegrass]

...what the REPUBLIC needs is some strong Leaders in the other two branches to come forward and "do the right thing", despite the slings and arrows..that said, the Marshalling of public support would help greatly. Thank GOD, for FR. :/

[Valin]

Gingrey (R-GA, 11) interested in FR, and in law restoring free speech
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1040281/posts

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

Doolittle: Supreme Court's Ruling Amends First Amendment Campaign Finance Regulation Upheld
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1044395/posts?page=12

Conservative Spotlight: Americans for a Better Country
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1046086/posts

Now what are YOU going to do? Bear in mind this IS an election year. That means the lads and lasses from DC are going to want your vote and support. Ask them(politely) just where they stand on this.

[The_Eaglet]

Does the Constitution authorize funding of presidential campaigns? I thought that laws about elections were up to the state legislatures, along with other reserved powers.

[skinkinthegrass]

I shall vote for a small government (c)onservative who believes in the Constitution, like the Founding Father purposed in the beginning of the Federal Republic in 1787...unfortunately, Constitutional limits been destroyed by Activist Judges (Warren Era). They all (the whole federal bench) should have been impeached...tarred and feathered, then whipped out of Washington, DC...with their congressional supporters/staffs and their like-minded liberals NGO's, also.

[Rensselaer]

Does the Constitution authorize funding of presidential campaigns? I thought that laws about elections were up to the state legislatures, along with other reserved powers.

No, of course not. Nor does the Constitution authorize restrictions on campaign contributions and expenditures - even leaving aside the First Amendment problems with such restrictions. But Congress and the Supreme Court have long ignored restrictions on Congress's power except (and only in some cases) when something in the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment specifically limits them. The only power Congress has over elections is the power to determine the "time, place and manner" of holding elections - where, when, and how (i.e. single-member districts, maybe manner of voting, etc.)

But don't expect that to stop 'em.

[The_Eaglet]

The only power Congress has over elections is the power to determine the "time, place and manner" of holding elections - where, when, and how (i.e. single-member districts, maybe manner of voting, etc.)

You're right, and I just checked the Constitution and it still says nothing about federal funding of candidates.

[B4Ranch]

", the lawmakers who wrote the new limits on campaign donations and restrictions in place for the 2004 elections see an urgent need in shoring up the system for providing government money to campaigns."

Sorry, folks this "government money" is OUR TAX DOLLARS. Once the Feds get it, it changes definitions!

[The_Eaglet]

Sorry, folks this "government money" is OUR TAX DOLLARS. Once the Feds get it, it changes definitions!

Good point.

[B4Ranch]

That's what gives them the idea they can do whatever in the hell they want with it.

[Valin]

Losing Crusade May Still Pay Dividends for a Senator

WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 — Senator Mitch McConnell was such a determined opponent of the new campaign finance law that when the fight moved from Congress to the courts, he made certain the decisive case was titled McConnell vs. F.E.C.

Now, with the Supreme Court validating the campaign spending restrictions enforced by the Federal Election Commission in a ruling earlier this month, Mr. McConnell will remain strongly identified with the cause, but on the losing side.

That twist is not lost on advocates of restrictions on fund-raising and spending, who say the word "McConnell" will very likely stand for the case as much as for the lawmaker.

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21 and a longtime adversary of Mr. McConnell, said: "I am going to talk for years now about how `McConnell' stands for the proposition that campaign finance laws protect against the appearance of corruption and do not restrict protected free speech."

While he may be disappointed by the defeat, Mr. McConnell, the Senate's second-ranking Republican, said he had no regrets about his crusade against proposals he said infringed on the First Amendment.

"This is something I believe deeply in," said Mr. McConnell, a conservative from Kentucky, who has devoted years to derailing efforts to restrict political fund-raising and spending.

As the public face of opposition to legislation that was often portrayed as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed interests, Mr. McConnell took a drubbing. Some proponents of the law, championed by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, called him "Darth Vader" and "Public Enemy No. 1."

"He wore it as a badge of honor," said Senator Robert F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, a chief ally.

In his role, Mr. McConnell was not only expressing his own view but also carrying the ball for fellow senators who shared his antipathy for the campaign finance changes but were less willing to get out in front on the politically tricky issue.

That work, as well as other tasks he has undertaken as the majority whip, could pay dividends because Mr. McConnell is viewed as a probable candidate to try to succeed Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee as Republican leader. Dr. Frist has indicated he does not intend to seek re-election in 2006, setting the stage for a contest to succeed him.

"When you look down the road, he seems to be the guy," one senior Republican Senate official said, though he said others were certain to seek the post. "He is very good at working behind the scenes to help members."

That is an apt way of describing Mr. McConnell, 61, who has long been viewed as a tough inside player in Congress and in his home state, where he has been instrumental in building the Republican Party. First elected in 1984, he is also a force in Washington at large, given that he is half of a power couple by virtue of his marriage to Elaine L. Chao, the labor secretary.

Mr. McConnell, who is smart and not shy about letting it show, is considered by many colleagues to be among the savviest tacticians in the Senate and a relentless opponent, a trait that may have sprung from his battle with polio as a youngster.

Last year, he was elected by his Republican colleagues to be the No. 2 to Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican Leader. When Mr. Lott ran into a political buzz saw over comments about Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, it eventually fell to Mr. McConnell to deliver the news to Mr. Lott that it was time to step aside.

Top Senate aides say Mr. McConnell has been a valuable assistant to Dr. Frist, using his own years in the Senate to fill in the gaps for the less experienced majority leader. He has also handled some of the dirty work, defending Dr. Frist against Democrats who accused him of mismanagement and dueling with the Democratic leadership on the floor. He was sidelined for a period earlier this year by heart surgery but seems to have rebounded.

Mr. McConnell has also sought to alter his own image, abandoning his longtime opposition to federal restrictions on tobacco advertising in exchange for a proposal to aid tobacco growers.

Yet campaign finance has been his signature issue, but as far as the McCain-Feingold law is concerned, Mr. McConnell acknowledges that fight is lost.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," he said. "They are the last word."

The outcome for Mr. McConnell drew sympathy from former Senator James L. Buckley of New York, a conservative whose name graced a previous campaign finance ruling, Buckley vs. Valeo. That 1976 decision struck down part of the Watergate-era campaign finance restrictions.

"The Supreme Court treated me much more kindly," Mr. Buckley said. "He tried to do his duty as a senator and a citizen. He failed, but he should take pride in the effort."

Though Mr. McConnell lost at the court, advocates of the law credit him with putting up a battle. They said he was simply overwhelmed by a shift in public, legislative and legal opinion on the issue.

Mr. McConnell disputes the idea that the new law will reduce the flow of money into politics, and he said that one of the chief consequences would be to weaken the national political parties and give more power to independent organizations.

"There won't be any less speech or money spent," Mr. McConnell said. "Dramatically more will be spent, just in a different way."

And while he has no concrete plans concerning campaign finance, he has no doubt the issue will resurface even as some people try to rehabilitate the system for public financing of presidential campaigns.

"The issue is never over," Mr. McConnell said. "You are talking about the ability of people to speak in a free society, and political speech, which is at the core of the First Amendment. People want to have their say."

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=1057008%2C10

[The_Eaglet]

Who wrote that? That was a perfect example of media spin-doctoring since their power gains if the 60-day rul

[The_Eaglet]

Who wrote that? That was a perfect example of media spin-doctoring since their power gains if the 60-day ruling is unconstitutionally enforced.

Congress needs to repeal this attack on the first Amendment!

[The_Eaglet]

Forwad link:
Campaign Finance "Reform" Offends the First Amendment-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 35