The Beginning of the end of McCain-Feingold.-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 83

National Review ^ | 3/4/044 | John Samples

[Valin]

Back to First The Beginning of the end of McCain-Feingold.

On the surface, the partisans of restricting campaign finance are riding high. In 2002, they passed McCain-Feingold, which imposed major new limits on fundraising and political advertising. Late last year, the Supreme Court said "yes" to those restrictions, and all but invited Congress to pass more. Yet, as Richard Nixon once remarked, the greatest danger in politics comes at the moment of greatest victory. Indeed, political problems for McCain-Feingold have arrived, and so has a solution.

Over 90 percent of congressional Democrats voted for McCain-Feingold. They expected something for their votes. The law banned unregulated contributions to the political parties. For much of the 1990s, the Democrats had trailed the Republicans in soft-money fundraising, so a ban on such contributions made partisan sense. However, with Republicans in the majority, the Democrats had to give up something to get their soft-money ban. They ended up trading an increase in federal contribution limits to get the soft-money ban. That was a big compromise for the Democrats. Republicans have always been much better than Democrats at raising contributions under federal limits. Doubling the contributions meant Republicans would have an easier time raising even more money.

So far, the consequences of McCain-Feingold seem pretty bad for the Democrats. For instance, it turned out that Democrats had learned how to raise soft money: From 1998 to 2002, they were dead-even with the Republicans. Since the Democrats were well behind in hard-money fundraising, banning soft money had worsened their overall fundraising relative to Republicans.

Meanwhile, the increase in hard-money limits turned into a predictable disaster for the Democrats. Republicans in Congress raised more than twice as much money as their Democratic counterparts, and the Bush campaign found itself with ten times the money John Kerry had by late February.

About a year ago, the Democrats realized that supporting the soft-money ban was a mistake. They began setting up organizations that might be able to legally raise and spend large donations to defeat President Bush. The financier George Soros gave over $10 million to the cause, and the leaders of these soft-money fronts began talking confidently of the potential to raise hundreds of millions of dollars.

Once again McCain-Feingold tripped them up. The law had made it a crime to use large soft-money donations to pay for political ads that mentioned the name of a candidate for federal office 60 days before a general election (and 30 days before a primary). The Democratic groups could still run the ads, but they had to raise the money within federal contribution limits. Of course, the groups existed for the purpose of raising large donations well beyond federal limits.

Recently, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the Democratic front groups could not spend the money they had raised on ads that mentioned only President Bush. The groups may find a way around the ruling, but they hardly needed the headache. Congressional Democrats must be wondering what they were thinking when they voted for McCain-Feingold.

They aren't the only ones. A group of 364 small progressive organizations realized that the expansive interpretation of McCain-Feingold favored by the staff of the Federal Election Commission would make their political activities all but impossible. McCain and his allies paint themselves as the foes of corporate Americans. But their restrictions on money in politics weaken political competition from the right and the left.

Fortunately, some in Congress are stirring to action. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.) recently introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act," which would repeal the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political advertising just before an election. Bartlett faces an uphill struggle to enact his bill, not least because some of his fellow House Republicans are vulnerable and thus benefit from the restrictions on advertising in McCain-Feingold.

Two centuries ago, Congress passed the Sedition Act, which punished critics of the government. Inveighing against the act, James Madison pointed out that "the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of communication thereon, is the only effectual guardian of every other right." By restricting the rights of all Americans — liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican — to publicly examine and to criticize members of Congress, McCain and his allies may be creating a bipartisan coalition that will one day pass Rep. Bartlett's bill. That day cannot come too soon.

— John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Reform bill: wolf in sheep's clothing
The Indiana Statesman 3/3/04 Sarah Taylor
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1089762/posts?page=1


If you want on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know.

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know.
Fame Fortune could be yours.
Be the first on your block!
Builds strong bodies 12 ways.
Mom would want you too.

[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

[DustyMoment]

Elected representatives from both parties (not just Democrats) should be ashamed and embarrassed that they voted to pass this dreck. It didn't dawn on many of them what they had done until they discovered the criminal penalties associated with violating the campaign contribution limits of CFR. In addition, they seem to have all but ignored the fact that in voting for passage, they publicly admitted (as the SC has observed) that they are corrupt as the result of campaign contributions. Do these fools ever think?

We elect people whom we hope have high moral fiber, strong character and honesty. Every action they have taken related to CFR belies these attributes. This law is the very poster child of why we need Congressional term limits, Congressional session limits and active Federal (Congressional) law caps (i.e. maximum of 5,000 or 10,000 laws on the books). To pass a new law, they have to repeal/strike down an existing one.

Every time something associated with CFR comes up, these idiots should hang their heads in shame. Of course, that assumes they have enough honor to FEEL shame. They're politicians - honor is anathema to them.

[marty60]

Where is the Evil Dum apologist McCain. Smooth move Johnny.

[Valin]

Kudos to The_Eaglet for giving me the idea.

The very least they should do is pass H.R. 3801 to stop the ban on citizen organizations from speaking out about candidates.

[Eastbound]

Bump for later.

[countrydummy]

bump/ping!

[codercpc]

Thought you might be interested in this blatent CFR violation by moveon.org

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1090656/posts

[The_Eaglet]

What idea was that?

[The_Eaglet]

Fortunately, some in Congress are stirring to action. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.) recently introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act," which would repeal the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political advertising just before an election. Bartlett faces an uphill struggle to enact his bill, not least because some of his fellow House Republicans are vulnerable and thus benefit from the restrictions on advertising in McCain-Feingold.

They deserve all the support we can give them.

[Valin]

H.R. 3801.
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to repeal the requirement that persons making disbursements for electioneering communications file reports on such disbursements with the Federal Election Commission and the prohibition against the making of disbursements for electioneering communications by corporations and labor organizations, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 11, 2004
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland (for himself, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. CRANE, Mr. OTTER, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. PAUL, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. CUBIN, and Mr. PENCE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration
http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3801.html

[Hank Rearden]

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R., Md.) recently introduced the "First Amendment Restoration Act," which would repeal the McCain-Feingold restrictions on political advertising just before an election. Bartlett faces an uphill struggle to enact his bill, not least because some of his fellow House Republicans are vulnerable and thus benefit from the restrictions on advertising in McCain-Feingold.

You know what? Republicans can kiss my butt. I'm so sick of both Big Stupid Government parties.

Time to start warming up the bullpen for American Revolution 2.0.

[Valin]

You of course realize that those who are pushing CFR expect people like you(no flame intended) to rant and rave and scream and yell, then do nothing concrete to stop them. Because you are not really in the game.
Remember this IS an election year and the boys and girls from DC are going to be coming around ask them where they stand on this, did they vote for it? Why, the fact and arguments to refute them are out there(if an idiot like me can find them I'm sure you'll have no trouble)
If that doesn't work for you see reply #3 John could use your help.
(to repeat myself, no flame intended)