Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who wins and who loses under campaign finance bill
CNN.com ^ | March 20, 2002 | CNN Staff

Posted on 03/22/2002 10:32:00 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:18 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

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.


(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; cfr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last

1 posted on 03/22/2002 10:32:00 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PRND21
FYI
2 posted on 03/22/2002 10:32:24 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
George Bush and I are both losers. I lose my right to free speech, and he loses my trust forever.
3 posted on 03/22/2002 10:38:32 AM PST by Maceman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
THE CONSTITUTION
LOSES

4 posted on 03/22/2002 10:39:30 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maceman
Funny, I would have thought that you would have lost trust in the people who actually wrote the bill as well.
5 posted on 03/22/2002 10:45:08 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
CNN and others of it's ilk win.......honest decent Americans lose.
6 posted on 03/22/2002 10:45:50 AM PST by OldFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Why is CFR bad law?
How does it violate my free speech?
7 posted on 03/22/2002 10:48:33 AM PST by PRND21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Isn't this nice. Now that the bill has passed, the media decides its time to tell us what's in it. GRRRRRRRRR
8 posted on 03/22/2002 10:50:56 AM PST by dittomom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
It doesn't. There are some who want you to believe it does, but in effect it doesn't. See the section "The First Amendment," above.
9 posted on 03/22/2002 10:53:59 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez;carlo3b;LadyX,Billie,ofMagog,COB1,scuttlebutt,parsifal,Fred Mertz,Snow Bunny
But advocacy groups could benefit if corporations and other large donors, banned from giving money to political parties, divert contributions to them.

Ah ha, so it moves money to the eco-whackos and nets a tax deduction to boot.


10 posted on 03/22/2002 10:54:00 AM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads

THIS is a denial of free speech? Horse feathers! The people in the media who declare that all ads have been banned during the final campaign days are LYING.

11 posted on 03/22/2002 10:56:49 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: razorback-bert
Aren't pro-life groups advocacy groups as well?
13 posted on 03/22/2002 10:57:55 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Could you tell me how?
14 posted on 03/22/2002 10:59:27 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I won't say I won't support him in the future, but my support is WAYYYYYY DOWN.

This may get rid of McCain (BIG maybe), but it will bring back Buchannan in a big way.

15 posted on 03/22/2002 10:59:43 AM PST by bigjoesaddle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Isn't that "everyone else"?

16 posted on 03/22/2002 11:00:32 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Yes, as is the NRA.
17 posted on 03/22/2002 11:02:07 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bigjoesaddle
Read up on the consequences. What I've read has forced me to maintain an open mind.
18 posted on 03/22/2002 11:02:26 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Good Lord, Luis. If you haven't been following the issue enough to know, nothing I will say can help you on this.
19 posted on 03/22/2002 11:04:36 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; Howlin; PhiKapmom; Dog Gone; sinkspur
FYI... a little more of the bill's impacts
20 posted on 03/22/2002 11:05:03 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
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.

21 posted on 03/22/2002 11:07:18 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: Recovering_Democrat
In other words....."Luis, I don't know, but I read it on FR."
23 posted on 03/22/2002 11:08:23 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I'm agreeing with you, Luis! I also believe that the Supreme Court will find the bill constitutional.
24 posted on 03/22/2002 11:10:14 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

25 posted on 03/22/2002 11:11:51 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
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.

26 posted on 03/22/2002 11:12:19 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

27 posted on 03/22/2002 11:12:54 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
BTTT
28 posted on 03/22/2002 11:14:09 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: deport
". . .groups and individuals can still run issue ads if they use hard money and disclose the source of the ads"
29 posted on 03/22/2002 11:16:10 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
Rush sells ads to support his show, doesn't he?
30 posted on 03/22/2002 11:16:49 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: deport
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.
31 posted on 03/22/2002 11:18:51 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
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.
32 posted on 03/22/2002 11:19:06 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

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.

33 posted on 03/22/2002 11:21:03 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert;carlo3b;LadyX,Billie,COB1,scuttlebutt,parsifal,Fred Mertz,Snow Bunny
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.

34 posted on 03/22/2002 11:21:56 AM PST by ofMagog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

35 posted on 03/22/2002 11:22:40 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

36 posted on 03/22/2002 11:25:27 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Thanks, but I'd rather look at the bill.
37 posted on 03/22/2002 11:26:43 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
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.

38 posted on 03/22/2002 11:27:20 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.

39 posted on 03/22/2002 11:28:54 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
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.
40 posted on 03/22/2002 11:29:32 AM PST by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
LOL!!! With the legal heavy hitters gunning for it, McInsane's pet project to rape the Constitution is headed for extinction. Not even President Bush who should know better by vetoing it, can thwart the inevitable. Earth to CNN, the Rats and their RINO buddies: this is as they like to say DOA. All you guys are whistling past the graveyard.
41 posted on 03/22/2002 11:29:55 AM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21; ALL
Why is CFR bad law? How does it violate my free speech?

Ignore PRND21. He's posed this question on numerous threads, and been answered numerous times. He's posing this question to disrupt threads. Ignore him, eventually he'll go away.


42 posted on 03/22/2002 11:29:57 AM PST by usconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I don't know how CFR would affect Rush, but he's freaking pretty heavily about it, spouting misinformation for days at a time. My guess is that it would adversely affect him somehow, or that he perceives it would.
43 posted on 03/22/2002 11:30:39 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RAT Patrol
When did "groups" get constitutional rights?
44 posted on 03/22/2002 11:31:49 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
I've been trying to find this in the actual bill. Can you point me to the section where that is detailed?
45 posted on 03/22/2002 11:33:05 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Yes, but Pro-Life is not PC,not is the NRA.

No company is going to risk giving money to gun nuts and clinic bombers, however who can say a bad word about the helping the environment and Bambi.


46 posted on 03/22/2002 11:33:24 AM PST by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; StoneColdGOP; Howlin; Miss Marple; Torie
Any comments?
47 posted on 03/22/2002 11:34:09 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez
I've asked people the same thing in different places on these boards. Nobody can.
48 posted on 03/22/2002 11:37:53 AM PST by eaglebeak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
I wonder how much $$$ Rush will lose by not being able to sell the NRA ads for sixty days prior to an election?
49 posted on 03/22/2002 11:38:30 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: eaglebeak
I've looked at the bill many times, what perchance are you waiting for?
50 posted on 03/22/2002 11:40:30 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-214 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson