Ross Joins Democrats In 'Soft Money' Appeal-Campaign Finance Reform Thread

WASHINGTON — Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, who voted for campaign-finance reform two years ago, is calling on the Federal Election Commission to allow certain political groups to raise unlimited “soft money” campaign contributions.
Ross and 53 other House Democrats told the agency in a letter last Friday that when they voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, they did not intend to impose the same restrictions on the groups that are required of federal elected officials and political parties.
“We voted to get federal elected officials and political parties out of the business of raising and spending soft money — moneys that presented the clearest danger of creating the fact or appearance of corruption in our government,” the Democrats wrote.
“It was our hope that (the law) would reinvigorate grassroots organizations to participate in the political process,” they wrote.

The debate was sparked by a Republican group called “Americans for a Better Country,” which asked the FEC whether it could spend soft money to support GOP candidates.
Democrat-affiliated organizations also have sprouted to raise soft money, which are unlimited donations from interest groups, wealthy individuals, companies and labor unions.

Ross declined through a spokeswoman to be interviewed. His office released a statement quoting him as saying, “Fund raising by these independent organizations does not directly impact lawmakers.
“Furthermore, many of these independent organizations use their funding to implement grassroots outreach activities that contribute positively to the democratic process, such as educating people on the importance of voting, and registering people to vote,” he said.

These political organizations, also known as 527s for the section of the federal tax code that regulates them, have traditionally been more actively used by Democrats than Republicans.
The 2002 campaign finance law imposed a sweeping ban on soft money. The measure was prompted by critics who argued the unlimited contributions allow groups to wield influence over elected officials and public policy.

The lawmakers’ request is reasonable since the McCain-Feingold law does not apply the soft-money ban to 527 groups, said Paul Sanford, general counsel at the Center for Responsive Politics, a campaign-finance advocacy group.
“The extent to which (the law) is directed to outside groups is limited,” Sanford said. “The focus of the soft-money ban in the law is on political parties and federal office holders and candidates.”

In a meeting Wednesday, the commission decided “that the broader topic of the impact of (the law) on 527 organizations would be left for upcoming rule making,” FEC spokesman Ian Stirton said.

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

“We voted to get federal elected officials and political parties out of the business of raising and spending soft money — moneys that presented the clearest danger of creating the fact or appearance of corruption in our government,” the Democrats wrote.
“It was our hope that (the law) would reinvigorate grassroots organizations to participate in the political process,” they wrote.

Well here's what has happened

FEC restricts use of 'soft money'
Washington Times 2/19/04 Steve Miller

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1082703/posts?page=1

Posted on 02/21/2004 10:28:57 AM CST by Valin

The Federal Election Commission yesterday voted 4-2 to place restrictions on political advocacy groups with no expressed party affiliation that use "soft money" to influence elections.
At the same time, the six-member commission delayed a decision on a campaign-finance law that prohibits money from big businesses and unions from going to tax-exempt groups that are connected to political parties.
Large corporate and union donations to federal candidates and the party structures, popularly known as "soft money," are outlawed under the 2002 campaign-finance reform law.
The commission ruled that groups without party connections can spend only donations from individuals — limited donations referred to as hard money — on campaigns targeting the defeat or election of candidates.

Republicans, who feared that newly formed tax-exempt groups would operate through loopholes in campaign-finance law, praised the commission's stance.
"Today's ruling effectively shuts down illicit 527 groups that operate in the shadows by using unregulated soft money to influence federal elections," said Ed Gillespie, Republican National Committee Chairman.
The groups to which Mr. Gillespie was referring, called 527s for the name of the tax provision under which they were established, were formed in response to the 2002 law.

Commission Vice Chairman Ellen Weintraub said the commission's ruling still provides room for groups to operate and encourages political activity.
"The area of get out the vote is one that we should not go out of our way to discourage," said Miss Weintraub, a Democratic appointee, referring to an activity that has been embraced particularly by Democrats in recent years.
She said the flap over the financing of both affiliated and nonaffiliated political groups might encourage Congress to be more specific in campaign finance legislation.

The commission's attorneys last month recommended that the FEC ban donations to tax-exempt groups devoted to affecting the outcomes of elections.
That recommendation was denounced by supporters of Democrats, particularly a coalition of 324 special-interest and advocacy groups.

The coalition, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's National Voter Fund, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Organization for Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, sent commissioners a letter saying that any restrictions "would entirely shut down many of the advocacy activities of our organizations."
Several of these advocacy groups contacted yesterday said they had not read the FEC decision and could not comment.

The Republican chairman of the commission, Bradley Smith, chastised his party yesterday for pushing for a prohibition of soft money after blocking campaign-finance reform efforts for years.
"It is not our place to measure the law in partisanship," said Mr. Smith, who was nominated to his post in 2000 by President Clinton.
"Frankly, I'm disappointed that my party seems to be afraid to combat this campaign on ideas. If they think they can win by silencing their opponents, I think they are going to lose," he said.

And I doubt this is what they had in mind. The problem is the more they try to fix it, the worse it becomes.

There are those in Congress who realize that this law is a REAL bad idea. And need our support.

Bartlett's bill-Campaign Finance Reform Thread
Washington Times 2/11/04 Greg Pierce

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1076758/posts?page=1
Posted on 02/12/2004 10:45:26 AM CST by Valin

Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland Republican, will introduce legislation tomorrow to undo the pre-election political-speech restrictions imposed by the McCain-Feingold law.

Mr. Bartlett's campaign-reform legislation would repeal those sections of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, that ban non-PAC-funded issue advocacy for a specific period of time prior to a primary or general election, United Press International reports.
"Federal government control of Americans' access to information about political candidates would be anathema to our nation's founders and eviscerates the central purpose of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech," Mr. Bartlett said.

His legislation also would eliminate the new prohibition on references to federal candidates in broadcast advertisements during 30 days before primaries and 60 days before general elections.

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.