Campaign Finance Law A 'Baby Step'-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 60

CBS ^ | 12/10/03 | Andrew Cohen

[Valin]

Give them credit for candor, at least. Even as the Supreme Court upheld most of the latest campaign finance reform statute, the Justices conceded that their massive 300-page ruling, and the well-meaning law, the so-called McCain-Feingold effort, won't truly protect politics from the corrupting influence of money.

"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter," wrote Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens in what surely has to be the understatement of the term. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

In other words, Justices O'Connor and Stevens want us to know that Congress will continue to try to tinker around the edges of the problem while the Court continues to balance the right to give money to political causes and candidates -- a recognized form of "free expression" under the first amendment -- with the right to have a true and corruption-reduced representative government. — And the Justices also want us to know that they aren't optimistic that there will be a real solution anytime soon.

For now, however, the Court's majority was content with affirming the legislative ban on "soft money" -- the heretofore unlimited reservoir of funds that have been funneled for years toward political parties.

Federal office-holders and candidates cannot raise soft money and political parties cannot receive it. The Court also wisely upheld Congress' restrictions on those often heinous "issue" ads that run on the eve of elections.

Two less significant provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act were rejected by the Court.

In theory anyway, the ruling is a victory for pro-reform forces; a defeat for the status quo.

But if the Court's tome-like declaration is a good-faith step toward a more noble brand of politics, it also is a symbol of how feeble is the government's response to the spiraling, almost sickening influence of campaign contributions. Even though the new law has been in effect pending appeal, President Bush already has broken fundraising records as he goes from rubber-chicken dinner to rubber-chicken dinner in a time of war. And even though the new law seeks to diminish the influence of money on politics, new partisan interest groups on the right and left already have sprouted up to do, essentially, what soft money used to do.

It seems there will be money in politics so long as politicians need campaigns and campaigns need money and individuals and corporations need politicians to do their bidding. The ruling certainly won't satisfy those who believe that the right to donate money (and the right to receive it) is a free speech bedrock right that Congress has no business regulating. Nor will the ruling likely satisfy those who want more money out of politics.

That's why both the back-slapping and hand-wringing on Capital Hill Wednesday seemed so misplaced. I mean, what in the world was Rep. Christopher Shays, R-Conn. thinking when he said the Court's ruling is a "grand slam"?

And, for that matter, what in the world was Mark Pence, R-Ind. thinking when he called today a "dark day in the history of liberty"? The decision is neither. It doesn't stop the flow of money into politics, as Justices O'Connor and Stevens noted, it merely redirects it into another channel. This is not a landmark ruling. And McCain-Feingold isn't a landmark law. It's a baby step, the direction of which depends entirely upon your political and legal view.

What the decision does, indisputably, is create certainty for the 2004 election cycle. Until today, the new rules were in effect but under a cloud. Now that cloud has been lifted. We now know that the new rules will be in effect for the forseeable future, mostly because the next generation of loopholes in the law probably won't come to light-- or at least be challenged in court-- until the 2006 election cycle. By then, of course, the Supreme Court and Congress both may have a different makeup.

Not that it will matter. As long as the Court considers money to be a form of constitutionally protected speech, and as long as the politicians who enact the laws are beholden to the very donors the influence of which genuine campaign finance reform would harness, money will continue to infect politics in ways large and small. You don't need a 300-page missive from the Supreme Court, candor and all, to tell you that.

By Andrew Cohen

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Senators McCain and Feingold Address BCRA-2002
The Campaign Legal Center 2/6/04 John McCain / Feingold
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1073871/posts?page=1



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

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know
It's fun, it's easy, it build strong bodies 12 way, it gets rid of those "unsightly" stains, And is guaranteed to improve you gas mileage.

[The_Eaglet]

What the decision does, indisputably, is create certainty for the 2004 election cycle. Until today, the new rules were in effect but under a cloud. Now that cloud has been lifted. We now know that the new rules will be in effect for the forseeable future,

I am still praying for a repeal.

[Valin]

Jan 15, 2004 -- Press Release: 527s Violate Campaign Finance Law

The Campaign Legal Center today joined Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics in filing a complaint with the Federal Election Commission alleging that certain newly formed "527 organizations" created to spend soft money on the upcoming federal elections have violated campaign finance law.


According to media reports, these groups - Americans Coming Together, The Media Fund and The Leadership Forum - have been created expressly to spend large sums on partisan voter mobilization drives or "issue advocacy" designed to influence the coming federal elections, and have a major purpose of influencing federal elections. Federal election law requires organizations with such a major purpose, and that spend more than $1,000 to influence federal elections, to register as political committees with the FEC. Federal political committees may only accept "hard money" - limited contributions from individuals and other federal political committees.


These groups have set up purportedly "non-federal" accounts which will accept corporate and labor funds and large contributions from individuals - soft money - and use them to finance partisan voter drives or "issue advocacy" aimed at the coming federal elections. The complaint alleges that these accounts are, in fact, clearly federal political committees that must be registered with the FEC, and must operate within the normal "hard money" source and amount restrictions.


From the complaint:


In pursuing these schemes, these section 527 groups are attempting to replace the political parties as new conduits for injecting soft money into federal campaigns. As one published report has noted, several pro-Democratic section 527 groups have "stepped in this year to attempt to fill the vacuum created by the soft money ban. These groups are accepting large contributions from labor unions that the parties are prohibited from accepting. . . . in the process, [these groups] are taking over many of the functions traditionally associated with the parties, including voter registration, canvassing and turnout." (Quoting Tom Edsall, "Democratic 'Shadow' Groups Face Scrutiny," The Washington Post, Dec. 14, 2003.)


The complaint asks the FEC to impose appropriate sanctions and enjoin these groups from further illegal activity.



Comments made today by Glen Shor, FEC Program Director for the Campaign Legal Center, are below:




My name is Glen Shor, and I'm the FEC Program Director for the Campaign Legal Center. The Campaign Legal Center is filing this complaint with Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics in pursuit of a core mission of our organization - to promote proper enforcement of campaign finance law.


We are asking the FEC to enforce existing campaign finance law and conclude that the organizations named in this complaint are federal political committees. It is certainly clear that a political organization which spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing federal elections, and has a major purpose of influencing federal elections, must register as a federal political committee and live by the applicable contribution limits.


The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in McConnell v. FEC, in which it upheld virtually all of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.


I think the broad message of the Court's opinion is that, in grappling with the facts of these cases, the FEC should not - and need not - interpret campaign finance laws in ways that defy campaign finance realities.


The FEC should be mindful that the Court expressly criticized it for doing so in the past - saying that the permission it granted for parties to spend soft money on voter drives and other campaign activity directly benefiting federal candidates was a subversion of the contribution limits long on the books.


The Court also put to rest the notion that "express advocacy" defined what spending could be constitutionally regulated.


And it signaled that federal campaign finance law rules could be applied to political organizations like these without narrowing constructions that render those rules useless.


This is an important test for the FEC, in the wake of a Supreme Court decision which found much to be desired in its previous enforcement of campaign finance law.


With full enforcement of the law here, we need not add this to the list of "hard lesson[s] of circumvention" pointedly referred to by the Court in the McConnell decision. We would instead mark a new and welcome day in the enforcement of federal campaign finance law.
http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/press-1003.html

[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]

So the angelic and non-partisan press will save us all. BARF!!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Fud]

"praying for a repeal"

Never happen. Both the Republican and Democratic incumbents in Congress love anything that maximizes their advantage over challengers.

"Campaign finance reform" will continue until the incumbent return rate equals 100% (except when Congressthings retire and are succeeded by their children)

[Valin]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm?

[King Black Robe]

You are so perceptive. LOL!

[Eastbound]

'Well, if the right fist don't get'cha then the left one will. Ya load 16 tons, whaddya get?'

Looks like this issue is going to be forced from both ends of the rope. As I understand it, this group is going to attempt to force gummint to act against these soft money by-pass groups and Billybob is going to do a head-on collision, forcing the gummint to drag him through the courts.

I don't look for the supremos to change their ruling, but I'll bet they are already getting an ulcer over it.

[Zack Nguyen]

Even though the new law has been in effect pending appeal, President Bush already has broken fundraising records as he goes from rubber-chicken dinner to rubber-chicken dinner in a time of war.

And what does Cohen expect the President to do? Stop campaigning for President? Will his Democratic opponent stop campaigning?

[Valin]

You have to understand, that for these pro-CFR types money in politics is the source of all that is evil today. No, that's not quite right, it's private money that's the problem, public money(with them in control of it of course) is good, pure as the driven snow.

[tahiti]

"...the Court continues to balance the right to give money to political causes and candidates -- a recognized form of "free expression" under the first amendment -- with the right to have a true and corruption-reduced representative government."

Isn't it interesting that Mr. Cohen revealed his inherent bias in support of the CFR when, in the sentence above, he was able to correctly cite the constitutional basis for the "right to give money to political causes and candidates..." but he was not able to cite a constitutional basis for the "right to have a true and corruption-reduced representatvie government?"

It is because no right exist.

FYI: Mr. Cohen is a regular opinion contributor concerning federal legal matters on CBS radio.

[David75]

The problem with the big-government types is that they fail to understand that the problem with government corruption is not money, it is big government. Big government has the power to grant favors to the highest bidder and cripple its competition, making influence in big government valuable. Hence, those who stand to gain or lose the most from big government spend large amounts of money to influence big government to favor them.

[Congressman Billybob]

Good afternoon, my friend,

North Carolina has just moved the date of its primary from May to July. That was done in response to rewriting of the law and continuing judicial review, as I had expected.

Bottom line for the anti-CFR effort is this: the TV ads become illegal in June, 30 days before the primary. So we now have a target date. I ask for all possible help from everybody. (Not to be shy about it....)

Congressman Billybob

Click here, then click the blue CFR button, to join the anti-CFR effort (or visit the "Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob" thread). Don't delay. Do it now.

[sharkhawk]

Add me to the list.

Thanks

[Valin]

Well I suppose I could. I'm just a sucker for a pretty face. :-)

[Valin]

How to Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform-Daily Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 55
Capitalism Magazine 10/11/99 Edwin A. Locke


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1071285/posts


How to Achieve Real Campaign Finance Reform: Have a Government That Can't Sell "Public Interest" Favors

Summary: Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls.

Congress is once again addressing the issue of campaign finance reform -- and no wonder. The American public has become increasingly disgusted by the unprincipled manner in which our legislative process is conducted. The process, in essence, consists of swarms of lobbyists descending like locusts on Washington, demanding special favors in return for campaign contributions. “Wealthy special-interest groups,” and the money they wield, are accused of being the ultimate culprits in this mess, and, it is asserted, Congress must rein them in.

Such reform cannot and will not work, because it targets the wrong culprit. “Moneyed interests” are not the real problem; they are only symptoms of a deeper cause. The corruption is caused not by material wealth but by spiritual poverty. The root cause is not “bad money” but a bad idea, namely the concept of the “public interest.”

Let us see how the premise of the “public interest” operates in practice. Imagine that you are an honest, idealistic congressman just elected to office. On your first day, you are accosted by four lobbyists. The first demands a tariff increase on certain imports to “protect” his group's industry -- which, he claims, serves the public. The second lobbyist asserts that it will benefit the public if his group gets a subsidy to help its members survive in a “brutally competitive” market. The third insists that it will help the public if members of his group are given license to be the exclusive providers of a certain service. The fourth says the public will be better off if unions are made illegal in his industry. The next day, a new group of lobbyists asks you for favors. These often conflict with those demanded by the first group, but are just as fervently presented as being in the “public interest.”

How then do you decide what to do? If an auto-industry spokesman argues for import tariffs on cars to protect the jobs of hundreds of thousands of workers, and an auto-dealer association argues for no tariffs in order to give hundreds of thousands of buyers lower prices, which group, in this case, is the “public”? Both and neither. You realize that “the public” is not an actual entity but only a collection of individuals. So which individuals, in any given case, should get what they want and at whose expense? There is no way to tell -- anyone can claim to be the public on any issue. In dismay you recognize that “the public interest” has no objective meaning. It is empty rhetoric.

Politics abhors a vacuum and when there are no coherent principles to guide action the void is filled by pressure-group warfare. The winner of any given battle is decided by such arbitrary factors as which group is bigger, richer, better connected (e.g., to the White House), or more attuned to the latest media hype or political tide. In practice, the principle of the “public interest” leads to a political war of all against all in which some individuals are sacrificed for the benefit of others. This mess is known as the “mixed” economy. (There are, of course, some principled lobbyists who seek, not special privileges, but simply the right to be left alone -- but their pleas fall on unprincipled ears.)

All this leads to widespread cynicism and demands for “campaign finance reform” -- reforms which cannot work. To think that you can eliminate the problem (the buying and selling of favors) by controlling its effects (limiting the size of contributions) is like trying to eradicate mental illness by limiting the number of beds in mental hospitals. Real campaign finance reform requires philosophical reform. We must discard the notion of the “public interest” and replace it with the proper principle: individual rights, which means the freedom of each individual to pursue his own interests as long as he does not coerce or defraud others. This means: replace the mixed economy with real capitalism -- no tariffs, no subsidies, no protection from competition, no favors.

Only when Congressmen have no special favors to sell will lobbyists stop trying to buy their votes -- and their souls. Property rights should have the same sacrosanct status as freedom of speech. If a modern lobbyist went to a Congressman and demanded that he get a law passed preventing people from publicly criticizing his organization, he would be laughed out of Washington. The same fate should befall lobbyists who want to limit how people use their property -- and for the same fundamental reason: an individual's right to his life.

--This editorial is copyrighted by the Ayn Rand Institute and reproduced here with permission." Visit their MediaLink at http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/.

About the Author: Edwin A. Locke is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute. He is author of The Prime Movers.

[DustyMoment]

"We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter," wrote Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens in what surely has to be the understatement of the term. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day."

IMO, this statement by two SC Justices is impeachable. They recognized that CFR (McCain-Feingold) would not resolve the issue of campaign funding, and, in a clear act of malfeasance and dereliction of duty, voted to VIOLATE the Constitution by FAILING TO STRIKE DOWN THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PORTIONS OF THE BILL.

Where is a legislator with the spine, the ethics, outrage, and the moral indignation to bring impeachment charges against these two SC Justices? Where is ANYONE, for that matter, with the wherewithall to bring impeachment proceedings against ALL of those elected and appointed officials who supported this unConstitutional law??

I'll tell you where - there AREN'T any; they're all gutless cowards!!!

Where, MOST OF ALL, is the OUTRAGE from the AMERICAN PUBLIC?????!!!!!! Are we ALL mind-numbed robots whose biggest concern in life is which d*ckhead gets voted off which stupid TV show??!!!

[The_Eaglet]

Forward link:
Bartlett's bill-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 62(Ray of Hope Alert)