McCain does about-face on grassroots reform bill

The Hill ^ | January 18, 2007 | Alexander Bolton

[neverdem]

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has told conservative activists that he will vote to strip a key provision on grassroots lobbying from the reform package he previously supported.

The provision would require grassroots organizations to report on their fundraising activities and is strongly opposed by groups such as the National Right to Life Committee, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

While grassroots groups on both sides of the political spectrum oppose the proposal, social conservative leaders such as Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, who broadcasts a radio program to hundreds of thousands of evangelical Christians, have been its most vehement critics.

McCain sponsored legislation last Congress that included an even broader requirement for grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. But now he will vote to defeat a similar measure.

It would be politically dangerous for McCain to support disclosure because it would anger many conservative activists, including those who advocate against abortion rights or for gun ownership rights. He is courting many of them for his 2008 presidential campaign. McCain’s presidential exploratory committee announced yesterday that Maxine Sieleman, a socially conservative leader who founded the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America, had joined its camp.

In letters circulated on Capitol Hill this week, the National Right to Life Committee and Gun Owners of America warned senators that votes on the grassroots lobbying provision would affect legislative scorecards they tabulate for each lawmaker.

Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has sponsored the amendment to the lobbying reform package that would strip the provision. His amendment is expected to come to the floor for a vote today, said advocates opposing it.

Bennett said he was “a little” surprised to hear that McCain would support him but was “delighted.” McCain is considered one of the most authoritative voices on ethics- and lobbying-related issues in the Senate.

“It’s a very high priority,” said Douglas Johnson, director of legislative affairs for the National Right to Life Committee. Johnson said ordinary grassroots activists from Arizona who had called McCain’s office were told by aides that he would support Bennett’s amendment.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, told The Hill that he had received confirmation from McCain’s staff yesterday that he would oppose the disclosure proposal.

“It’s huge,” Sekulow said of the issue’s importance. “It’s the most significant restriction on grassroots activity in recent history. I’d put it up there with the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.”

McCain was the chief sponsor of the landmark 2002 campaign finance bill, a history that still angers many conservatives. They cite McCain’s sponsorship of that legislation as something that makes them wary about supporting his presidential bid. But McCain’s recent action could redefine him.

“He’ll do everything he can to appeal to conservatives he has already tried to silence,” said John Velleco, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, referring to McCain’s support of campaign finance reform. “I think he’s trying to gain the support of conservatives as much as he can.”

“Romney’s doing the same thing,” Velleco added, explaining that McCain’s rival for the nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is re-evaluating his past positions on gun ownership rights.

While McCain has privately told conservative groups that he will side with them, he was not ready to reveal his position yesterday. He opened yesterday’s floor debate with a 15-minute speech on the lobbying reforms under consideration. While he urged his colleagues to support the creation of an office of public integrity, he made no mention of grassroots lobbying.

Immediately afterward he declined to state his position on grassroots disclosure.

“I’ll address it when it comes up,” he told The Hill.

But McCain’s spokeswoman, Eileen McMenamin, confirmed that he would support the Bennett amendment.

“Initially when Sen. McCain introduced legislation last year it had a grassroots provision,” she said. “Subsequent to that that he got a lot of feedback from groups that the requirements would be too onerous on them because of the reporting requirements.”

McMenamin added that a grassroots lobbying disclosure requirement was not included in reform legislation McCain introduced at the beginning of this month.

Johnson, of the National Right to Life Committee, said that there is confusion about which groups would be affected by the pending regulation.

“Under Section 220, anyone who is paid anything by an organization that spends any money at all to encourage more than 500 members of the general public to communicate with members of Congress, if he or she also has contacted congressional offices directly as few as two times, and has spent as little as 20 percent of his or her time on such direct lobbying and grassroots-motivating activities, would be required to register with Congress as a ‘lobbyist’ and file detailed quarterly reports,” wrote Johnson in a letter to Senate offices, adding, “If enacted, it will disrupt the constitutionally protected activities of thousands of issue-oriented citizen groups from coast to coast. …”

McCain’s past allies in battles to reform government strongly support disclosure and were surprised to discover his position had changed.

“We saw him supporting it last year,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen.

“It surprises me and it will surprise the rest of the reform community. I was really expecting him not to get involved in that provision and I had received no indication from his office that he was leaning against it.”

[Nam Vet]

Mc Vain is a weasel. I've long ago lost any respect for him. He doesn't have a principle he won't well out.

Nam Vet

[eraser2005]

Wow, are you deluded.

[Black Republican for Bush]

There are two types of conservatives in general, religious conservatives and small govt/movement conservatives. Many religious conservatives do not believe in smaller govt for its own sake. Movement conservatives want smaller govt but a significant number are not enamored of the conservative social agenda of the religious Right. If someone believes some social spending is needed to better our society, it does not necessarily make them liberal or moderate. I believe that you have much too narrow a view of conservatism. In my opinion, liberalism involves a belief that throwing massive amounts of money at a problem is a solution. That's not my conviction. Take inner city poverty for instance. I believe that having more marriages and far fewer babies out of wedlock would help solve many problems in our cities. Greatly increasing the number of two parent families where the parents are adults with stable jobs would do far more to alleviate poverty than pumping billion after billion into programs. So would a greater interest and a greater motivation to do well in academics. But improving the schools with better books, smaller classes, and improved infrastructure surely would have a positive impact as well. That's pragmatic conservatism, something that more of us should give some consideration to, instead of rigid doctrine.--Mark

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"What do you think about Hillary?

What do you think about Obama?

What do you think about Nagel? "

I should think that conservative opposition to these people would be ASSUMED on a conservative forum. I didn't vote for them and I didn't give money to them. I DID vote for Bush and gave money to his campaign.

"Why do you think we have a democrat majority? "

Pathetic "leadership" in the GOP, that's why. The moderates flipped.

"I am sick to death of you whiners. You do nothing but whine, whine, whine. You NEVER do anything to move us from the advance of the liberals. "

Voting and supporting liberals in the party doesn't advance conservative causes either. In fact, it makes certain they will not be advanced. I'm sick to death of you "moderates" in the party. You'd just prefer we shut up, but you'll find that we're not as tractable as your ideological allies. We expect RESULTS for our votes and support.


"Where is your perfect conservative? How are you promoting him for election? "

"Pefect" isn't required. Non-liberal IS REQUIRED.

"Or, are you daily going to be saying "if _______ does not jump this direction, he will lose my support?" "

If a politician doesn't even follow the party platform, of course he loses my support. A politician who votes for gun control loses my support. A politician who votes for another illegal alien amnesty loses my support. A politician who votes to expand the welfare state - AGAIN - loses my support.

Perhaps as a forner Democrat voter, you don't understand this whole "conservatism" thing very well.

"Exactly how do you plan to make this country go in the conservative direction while giving it to the liberals? "

How do you? That's what a vote for someone like Rudy would mean, after all.

[Black Republican for Bush]

The budget deficit as compared to the GDP is not a meaningless statistic. Are you saying that if the deficit were 20% of GDP instead of the current 1.9% that it would make no difference? Not a single economist would agree with you there. Economists have said that a sizable deficit is manageable when an economy experiences strong growth. And we've had strong growth over the last 3 years. Our deficit has decreased by over 150 billion over the past two years, and the fact it is only 1.9% of GDP is a significant stat indeed.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"There are two types of conservatives in general, religious conservatives and small govt/movement conservatives. "

There are many just plain "conservatives" who are in both camps.

"If someone believes some social spending is needed to better our society, it does not necessarily make them liberal or moderate. "

"Social spending" like this is unconstitutional.


"I believe that having more marriages and far fewer babies out of wedlock would help solve many problems in our cities."

Yes, it would.

"But improving the schools with better books, smaller classes, and improved infrastructure surely would have a positive impact as well. "

It would not. For one thing, federal education spending is not only unconstitutional, but is wasted at the federal level. Almost all education funding is local. For another thing, we spend far more per-student in adjusted dollars now than we did 20 years ago for far less result. Throwing money at education has FAILED. Why repeat the mistake?

" That's pragmatic conservatism, something that more of us should give some consideration to, instead of rigid doctrine."

"Rigid doctrine" equals the "US Constitution" here. Sorry, no sale.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"The budget deficit as compared to the GDP is not a meaningless statistic. "

Yes, it is.

" Are you saying that if the deficit were 20% of GDP instead of the current 1.9% that it would make no difference?"

Let me put to you this way: your company's revenue stream increased this year and your CEO ran up his credit cards to the max and is only able to make the minimum payments. Now, saying that the CEO's deficit is only 2% of the Company Domestic Product is sort of meaningless, isn't it? It's the same thing. The revenue of the country is NOT the revenue of the government.

Let's not even bring up what this is doing to the DEBT. Up $2 trillion from 6 years ago.

"Not a single economist would agree with you there. "

Quite a few would agree that this is a meaningless statistic.

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=435&sortorder=articledate

[Black Republican for Bush]

I would like to ask you which presidents since 1900 you consider to be conservative. And if Reagan is a given, who was the last one before him? Calvin Coolidge?

[Herford Turley]

It is both amazing and terrifying that a statement like this is presented as a fact in a news article. No evidence is presented to back up the statement (considered by whom?) We are to simply read it and accept it. Really, this is just an opinion that is passed of as fact, and the terrifying part is that all they do is make a statement, and people automatically accept it. It's the Big Lie in action.

You must first begin by reading with skepticism, knowing that many of the facts in the article are wrong or aren't reportedly correctly.

[Black Republican for Bush]

"Quite a few would agree that this is a meaningless statistic" And quite a few would not.It's true that GDP demonstrates what our economy as a whole produces, while debt is accumulated by our govt, not our nation as a whole. But you fail to see that a strong GDP means increased tax revenue, which does help to decrease the deficit. Our tax revenues have been 10 to 15% greater than had been predicted. So if greater business profits, which result in greater tax revenue, creates a larger economy, the greater revenues coming into govt coffers shrink the deficit.That's why strong growth can make a significant difference when running a deficit.--Mark

[writer33]

A SCOTUS justice will talk a good fight about recognizing that the framers considered that the Bill of Rights was redundant - that the body of the text is to be interpreted as implying everything that the Bill of Rights states explicitly - and more. The objection to a Bill of Rights was that it would be interpreted as limiting the rights of the people to only those things explicitly mentioned. Hence, the Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It can therefore be argued that whenever an appeal is made to the Bill of Rights it is a shortcut, and that the proper jurisprudence of the Constitution should not even require reference to the Bill of Rights, which should properly be labelled a Bill of Some of the Rights of the People and the States. The question (the historical counterfactual) is, whether the rights of the people and of the states would have been as much respected without the "Bill of Rights" there as essentially a list of things which are not in the Constitution? The example of Jefferson buying Louisiana without specific constitutional warrant does not make us sanguine about that . . .

I would have to agree with you. The Bill of Rights do tend to point to only ten rights, and are widely misinterpreted by the general public.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"I would like to ask you which presidents since 1900 you consider to be conservative. "

Ike was pretty good.

Bush is actually on par with JFK as far as "conservatism" goes.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"you fail to see that a strong GDP means increased tax revenue,"

What of it, when you still run a deficit?

"That's why strong growth can make a significant difference when running a deficit."

More revenue means more SPENDING, not a lower deficit.

[incredulous joe]

Amen.

The guy is such a chameleon - he ought to be a donk.

[Black Republican for Bush]

Ike never considered himself a conservative. He thought of himself as "a modern Republican". And more revenue did in fact decrease the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.--Mark

[Black Republican for Bush]

In any case, Enoch, even though you and I disagree on some things, I'm happy that the discussion remained civil. There's too much rancor on this site, and I wish that more of us would express ourselves calmly and rationally.I enjoyed our chat. Take care.--Mark

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Ike never considered himself a conservative."

Neither did JFK, but compared to today's crop....

"And more revenue did in fact decrease the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office.--"

It did nothing for the debt and it STILL MISSES THE POINT that an expansion of federal government is repugnant to both conservatism and liberty.

There's no excuse for "conservatives" advocating a larger and more powerful central government. NONE.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"In any case, Enoch, even though you and I disagree on some things, I'm happy that the discussion remained civil."

Indeed. You're clearly a bright guy, but we disagree on a few things. I happen to agree with von Mises on this whole "deficit is OK because the GDP makes it look small." I object to the very concept of running a deficit even when we aren't at war AND taxing DOD to fund social programs while our junior enlisted personnel are often paid below the poverty line.

[RKBA Democrat]

"At least you are a thinking democrat."

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm sure you'll find plenty of FReepers who would disagree with you on that. :-)

"FR has failed in showing you the danger of the democrats because the silly purists or those needing attention come on here and trash Bush (siding with the MSM and democrats) because as superman Bush failed to be their personal one time president of the U.S."

FR has not failed. FR is a conservative website, not necessarily a GOP one. And from my own personal perspective, I'm a lot more conservative than I was the day that I signed up.

One of the problems that I see with FR, however, is that it does tend to attract the howlers. No one convinces anyone of the veracity of their opinions by engaging in reckless ad hominem attacks. And that is a lot of what I see on FR. And I especially don't like the attacks on President Bush.

Lord knows President Bush has made his share of mistakes. And he is about as politically tone-deaf as you can get on many domestic political issues. But on the things that I care about, i.e. our survival as a people, the man is flat out right. He deserves the respect that should come with the office. He also deserves the ability to at least speak his mind on issues of national concern and to be given the benefit of the doubt for at least 5 minutes before beginning the latest round of attacks on his morals, motivations, and character.

President Bush is not an inherently evil person, yet to judge from the rhetoric even here on FR, you'd think that we woke up one morning to find that joseph stalin had taken up residence in the White House.

"So, you still think the democrats will protect this country for your grandchildren. What an absolute failure for FR and the tons of anti-Bush posters here."

I don't think that either political party is going to do much of anything other than get it's members elected to political office. That's what political parties exist to do: to elect their members to political office. Organizationally speaking, I prefer the Democrats. I simply see more potential for better representation of my conservative political ideas within the Democratic party than I do within the GOP.

[ClancyJ]

Interesting reply.

Some of the points I disagree with.....

- Bush is politically tone deaf on many social issues.

He is not tone deaf, but he is firm in his objectives and beliefs. He is stubborn (which is exactly the trait that serves him best in the WOT), and he just disagrees with us on some issues such as immigration. He sees the only real solution to the immigration problem is to come up with a way to raise the life standard for them in Mexico. Which I feel he wanted to go with open trade with Mexico and Canada to form a North American block. He also states "family values do not end at the border". And, as president, how do you split up families. How does a president tell an American citizen to get out of the country (as the babies are American citizens).

I feel he hears clearly the complaints, but gears his reactions to what would be the reaction of the Office of President - not George Bush the man because he has utter respect for the office.

This explains his serving as President of all the people, Mexican, Muslim, democrats - all.

One of his traits that amazed me was his ability to ignore the controversy and calmly set about doing the business that needs to be done. This was shown in his reaction to the voting disputes in the first election. He did not hang over the TV day in and day out as I did. He turned over the election disputes to Jim Baker and he went to the ranch and started working on his cabinet decisions. This was before the election was even assured.

So, little did we know of many of the traits of this man that would be so important in the events that occurred and the war. The pure determination, the guts, the moral clarity, the strong belief in God, the ability and confidence to go on working for the American people while the rest of the world is all atwitter nipping at his heels.

These are the traits I see that are those of a great man - a real leader. And, the main thing - I fully trust this man to love America, protect her and protect her citizens as he sees this as the first duty of a president.

Who would have seen the stubborness that would allow him to stand firm with his resolve to go after the terrorists "over there" rather than on our shores? And, we know, he gets a lot of flack for that stubborness.

-- You feel you can get more done in the democratic party than in the republican for conservative goals.

You may be correct and they need a little conservatism BUT they also limit the freedom of their members. How often do you see democrats stray from the "talking points" or the agenda? Look at what happened to Lieberman when he supported the president on the war. He was made an outcast.

You may be too young to realize that the democrat party is not the party of years ago. In those days they were not socialists and they produced many fine men as leaders - Truman, FDR.

Not so today. It has been taken over by the far left/socialists. It has become anti-American, anti-God, anti-right to life (meaning killing unborn babies, live aborted babies, deformed babies, etc.).

This pro-abortion stance has ruined them as it started them on the slippery slope. If you kill a baby in the womb, why not an unwanted born baby, why not deformed, why not use fetus cells for experimentation, why not harvest those cells for the benefit of others (sort of like cannibalism you know). They have given their souls over the issue of being able to kill their own unborn babies. What is there to respect about that?

Look carefully at how they vote on issues and what the real purposes are behind those votes. The ones I see - taking away our free speech, removing God from our lives, discarding or devaluing our history in the schools, corrupting our children in schools and generally promoting total control by government. This total control by government of course leads to the "superior elitists" being the ruling class while the peons are kept ignorant, are made dependent on government and more and more controlled by that government.

Who in today's world would allow government to control their lives from birth to death? Do you ever wonder why they seem to love Castro, protect the terrorists, bemoan the war taking out Saddam? Why is it they will never fight for America? Why is it they are the "blame America first" party?

I'm afraid I have come to actually hate the democrats and fear them as apparently they fear a simple good man who believes in God and will fight for the safety of the citizens. Why the hate? What is there to hate about a George Bush?

Has he murdered? Is he a dictator? Has he stolen funds? Is he corrupt? No, none of these. But he believes in God, he believes in America and will defend it rather than some international organization. And he has the power they believe should always be in their hands. So their whole agenda is to destroy the man and do so with the propaganda media.

I suggest you listen to Rush Limbaugh - he is the world authority on how the democrats think and their true purposes. I have learned so much.

He is now my touchstone. If I worry about a happening in the news, I listen to Rush's analysis. If he is upset or worried, I am upset and worried.

Sorry this is so long. Like I said I could talk to you for hours.