Who wins and who loses under campaign finance bill

CNN.com ^ | March 20, 2002 | CNN Staff

[Luis Gonzalez]

National parties: Opponents argue that the national parties will be the big losers because they will be deprived of unregulated "soft money" contributions, which amounted to $500 million in the 2000 presidential election. Candidates would have to look elsewhere for support, probably reducing the party's influence. Supporters say the law would force the parties to reach out to less affluent donors and expand grass-roots activities, eventually making the parties stronger.

[Luis Gonzalez]

All that the NRA has to do is disclose the source of the ad.

They would not be allowed to use donations from Remington or Smith and Wesson to run ads, the money woukd have to come from the membership.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In other words....."Luis, I don't know, but I read it on FR."

[eaglebeak]

I'm agreeing with you, Luis! I also believe that the Supreme Court will find the bill constitutional.

[eaglebeak]

In other words....."Luis, I don't know, but I read it on FR."

Rush Limbaugh has been spewing that stuff all over the airwaves for days. People believe him in spite of the fact that he has no specific evidence whatsoever for his claims.

[jwalsh07]

You're living in a leftist dream world. If you mention a candidate in an ad in the last 60 days they can put you in jail because you have violated the law.

Except of course if you are a member of the media in which case you can do whatever you please.

So, now you show me in the first amendment how and when Congree can limit the speech of "the people" and exempt "the press"

When you're done with that, perhaps you'd like to tell me what section of the Constitution exempts Indians from soft money limits.

Then when you locate these issues in the penumbra, I'd like to know how you can enforce this bs.

I'm waiting with bad breath.

[deport]

The part limiting issue ads within the 30/60 day window appears to me to be in jeopardy if the SCOTUS follows precedent of the 1976 ruling....

In 1976, two years after the last major congressional effort to limit political spending, the high court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that Congress could set limits on political contributions but that limits on spending violated free speech rights.

[GraniteStateConservative]

BTTT

[eaglebeak]

". . .groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads"

[Luis Gonzalez]

Rush sells ads to support his show, doesn't he?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I am looking for the actual bill right now. From what I've found, it doesn't limit spending to a certain amount of dollars.

[jwalsh07]

But heck don't take my word for it, see what David Mason who is in charge of enforcing campaign finance laws has to say about it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill

The McCain-Feingold-Cochran campaign reform bill is similar to the bills that were debated in the 105th and 106th Congresses. A strong bipartisan majority of both the House and the Senate favors this reform. It contains the following major components:

A Ban on Soft Money. The bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted under state law to accept these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal elections, including advertising that supports or opposes a federal candidate. In addition, federal candidates would be prohibited from raising soft money. These provisions would shut down the Washington soft money machine, prohibiting the $100,000, $250,000 and even $500,000 contributions that for the last decade have flowed to the political parties.

McCain-Feingold-Cochran would also double the amount of "hard" money individuals may contribute to state parties for use in federal elections, from $5,000 to $10,000. It would increase the amount of "hard" money an individual may contribute in aggregate to all federal candidates, parties, and PACs in a single year from $25,000 to $30,000.

Restrictions on "Phony Issue Ads" Run by Corporations and Unions (The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment). First adopted as part of McCain-Feingold during the Senate's February 1998 campaign finance debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses the explosion of thinly-veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications." "Electioneering communications" are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. It would also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment permits 501(c)(4) non-profit corporations to make electioneering communications as long as they use only individual contributions (not corporate or union funds) and make certain disclosures. The amendment thus prevents unions or corporations from laundering funds through non-profits to make electioneering communications.

The amendment also provides that a group making electioneering communications that total $10,000 or more in an election cycle must disclose its identity, the cost of the communication, and the names and addresses of all contributors of $1,000 or more to the sponsor of the communication within the cycle. If the group makes expenditures on electioneering communications from a separate bank account to which only individuals can contribute, it need only disclose the large donors to that account.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. It does not prohibit any election ad, nor does it place limits on spending by outside organizations. But it will give the public crucial information about the election activities of independent groups and prevent corporate and union treasury money from being spent to influence elections.

Strict Codification of the "Beck" Decision. The bill would require labor unions to notify non-union employees that if they file an objection, they are entitled to have their agency fees reduced by an amount equal to the portion of fees used for political purposes.

Foreign Money. McCain-Feingold-Cochran would strengthen current law to prohibit foreign nationals from making any contributions in a federal, state or local election. The foreign money abuses from the 1996 election that captured so much attention would be entirely shut down by this proposal.

Greater Disclosure and Stronger Election Laws. McCain-Feingold-Cochran contains a number of provisions designed to improve disclosure of campaign finance information and strengthen enforcement of the law. The bill would: (1) strengthen current law to make it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on federal property, including the White House and the United States Congress: (2) bar federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, such as a mortgage payment or country club membership; (3) specify circumstances in which activities by outside groups or parties will be considered coordinated with candidates; and (4) provide more timely disclosure of independent expenditures.

[ofMagog]

Been visiting several places in Hawaii, including USS Arizona.
Hope crew has been behaving, more or less.

This legislation is going to hurt Bush badly down the road.

[jwalsh07]

Luis, the bill goes to the heart of the First Amendment. It establishes three different groups of citizens, politicians, journalists and the proletariat, thats us.

Groups of people can not get together and buy ads to criticise their representatives within 60 days of an election. It is outrageous, not simply bad, but outrageous.

[jwalsh07]

Restrictions on "Phony Issue Ads" Run by Corporations and Unions (The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment)

LOL Luis, the incumbents don't want criticism close to an election when people make up their minds so they deem them "Phony Issue Ads". George Orwell is laughing his ass off.

[eaglebeak]

Thanks, but I'd rather look at the bill.

[RAT Patrol]

Interest groups: Groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union oppose the measure, arguing that the restrictions on "issue ads" violate their constitutional right to express their opinion on political matters. They say the news media will gain because they will keep their unfettered ability to shape public opinion. But advocacy groups could benefit if corporations and other large donors, banned from giving money to political parties, divert contributions to them.

Or more likely, and what the media is banking on, they will divert contributions to the media by buying advertising in order to influence news and opinion.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I hear what you're saying, I just don't see that in the bill.

But I'm still reading, I may yet find that.

Wat I have found is that I CAN, as an individual or a group, run that ad, as long as I disclose the source and use hard money only.

IOW...I can't accept a million bucks from Smith and Wessson, the NRA, or any "entity" to buy an ad supporting a pro-second amendment candidate. I CAN put together a group of citizens and collect hard money to buy the ad.

[KC_Conspirator]

Free speech is for everyone. So when I want to buy an add calling for people to put pressure on our local politicians in either my local paper, on televison, or on radio, I can't do so because I am banned from doing it 60 days before an election. HOWEVER, the local Kansas City Star, which is biased as any paper can be, as well as the local radio and television commentators may comment and run non-stop editorials for their favorite democrat candidate.