Backlash grows over McConnell's campaign spending measure

thehill.com ^ | 12/5/15 | Jonathan Swan

[cotton1706]

A bipartisan backlash is growing against Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's efforts to insert an obscure measure into a year-end spending bill that would allow unlimited spending by political parties in coordination with candidates.

McConnell, who has long believed that money is an expression of free speech and that restrictions should be removed on political spending, is trying to mimic a tactic that was employed last year.

In late 2014, congressional leaders from both parties used a massive year-end bill as a vehicle to greatly increase the amount of money that can flow into political parties.

But while last year’s rider was snuck in at the last minute, this year McConnell’s plan has been smoked out early.

The backlash now comes from both the left and -- perhaps surprisingly given conservatives' fervent advocacy of looser restrictions on political spending -- the right, but for different reasons.

The protests are becoming so loud that they might encourage Democratic leadership and ultimately President Obama to stop McConnell’s rider from making it into the final bill.

[cotton1706]

McConnell wants to further empower his RNC, NRSC, and NRCC cronies with the power to "crush" any conservative opposition! And he wants to protect his moderate minions, who vote for him for majority leader.

He's an insidious oligarch!

[L,TOWM]

Something that the left and right can find common cause in would be eliminating the unlimited legal bribery that non-natural persons can use to purchase the government of THEIR liking.

We no longer live in a representative republic or even the mob-rule of a democracy anymore. We live in an oligarchy and it is being run by people that could give a squat about 97% of the people of this nation. Any “conservative” that still believes that big business is their ally needs to seriously get a clue and take a cold hard look at what has been going on for the last 20 years.

[Amntn]

The money quote:

“It’s a non-starter from our side,” said Dave Brat (R-Va.), another member of the Freedom Caucus, in a telephone interview Friday. “The trust level still isn’t there,” he added saying that the proposal “caused some heartburn” in the Freedom Caucus because members believe party leadership may use its extra money to try to defeat Tea Party-supported candidates in primaries as they have done in the past.

[Amntn]

But they can’t understand why Trump is in the lead.

[Ken H]

Start taxing multi-billion endowments such as Harvard, Yale and Duke. Surprised the idea has not been raised by the candidates.

[bert]

or, money in the campaign is more potent than illegal immigrant hordes in the voting booths

[bert]

are the earnings of those endowments not taxed?

[Awgie]

Big Business, like “Big” anything (government, unions, philanthropies, media, etc), seeks self perpetuation and continued monopolization of power.

Makers and creators initially set things in motion, but eventually with success, administrators, bureaucrats, BOD’s, cronies and profiteers gain control, often abandoning original corporate intentions, for the primary and ultimate goal, eternal life.

There is a point at which unbridled success becomes corrupt and dangerous.

[Ken H]

Correct, according to a couple of sources I looked up. They are considered nonprofit entities.

[gusty]

This is the one issue I agree with McConnell. The whole idea of campaign finance laws are an assault on the 1st Amendment. Regulating the money that pays for the speech is regulating the speech. To limit the ability of your opponents to engage in free speech is what the Left champions. It is distressing that after what we saw with Lois Lerner and the IRS posters here cannot see this. I guess the totalitarian instinct does not only exist on the Left, but also here.

[cotton1706]

I agree with you on Campaign Finance. But McConnell is very selective on who should have the freedom to give money to candidates. He literally despises the Senate Conservatives Fund, because it gives candidates that McConnell does not support the means to get into his precious senate.

He and his minions want to control who is elected, so there’s a democratic aristocracy.

He did this same thing last year, again in a December “must pass” bill. And that was to get the money rolling for Jeb or somebody similar. That hasn’t quite worked out, and the donors are now maxed out under the law, so McConnell wants to enable them to donate more.

[cotton1706]

And here are the senators up for reelection next year, and their conservative voting records. Guess which senators McConnell wants to send all this new money to? And in return, they will all vote for him for majority leader.

Lee (UT) - 2016 - 99% (Average) - 100% (CReview) - 100% (Heritage) - 97% (CFG) - 100% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Paul (KY) - 2016 - 94% (Average) - 93% (CReview) - 87% (Heritage) - 95% (CFG) - 96% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Crapo (ID) - 2016 - 88% (Average) - 76% (CReview) - 88% (Heritage) - 85% (CFG) - 92% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Rubio (FL) - 2016 - 88% (Average) - 80% (CReview) - 92% (Heritage) - 92% (CFG) - 96% (ACU) - 80% (FreedomWorks)

Lankford (OK) - 2016 - 86% (Average) - 60% (CReview) - 76% (Heritage) - 100% (CFG) - 94% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Shelby (AL) - 2016 - 86% (Average) - 66% (CReview) - 99% (Heritage) - 76% (CFG) - 88% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Scott (SC) - 2016 - 85% (Average) - 85% (CReview) - 73% (Heritage) - 90% (CFG) - 96% (ACU) - 83% (FreedomWorks)

Vitter (LA) - 2016 - 80% (Average) - 71% (CReview) - 83% (Heritage) - 60% (CFG) - 86% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Grassley (IA) - 2016 - 80% (Average) - 72% (CReview) - 63% (Heritage) - 91% (CFG) - 92% (ACU) - 83% (FreedomWorks)

Johnson (WI) - 2016 - 78% (Average) - 67% (CReview) - 47% (Heritage) - 95% (CFG) - 96% (ACU) - 83% (FreedomWorks)

Barrasso (WY) - 2016 - 77% (Average) - 61% (CReview) - 70% (Heritage) - 71% (CFG) - 84% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Toomey (PA) - 2016 - 75% (Average) - 63% (CReview) - 59% (Heritage) - 86% (CFG) - 88% (ACU) - 80% (FreedomWorks)

Boozman (AR) - 2016 - 74% (Average) - 50% (CReview) - 76% (Heritage) - 65% (CFG) - 79% (ACU) - 100% (FreedomWorks)

Moran (KS) - 2016 - 72% (Average) - 62% (CReview) - 69% (Heritage) - 69% (CFG) - 75% (ACU) - 83% (FreedomWorks)

McCain (AZ) - 2016 - 68% (Average) - 43% (CReview) - 53% (Heritage) - 88% (CFG) - 91% (ACU) - 67% (FreedomWorks)

Coats (IN) - 2016 - 63% (Average) - 48% (CReview) - 59% (Heritage) - 63% (CFG) - 76% (ACU) - 67% (FreedomWorks)

Thune (SD) - 2016 - 61% (Average) - 52% (CReview) - 59% (Heritage) - 59% (CFG) - 84% (ACU) - 50% (FreedomWorks)

Isakson (GA) - 2016 - 58% (Average) - 40% (CReview) - 64% (Heritage) - 53% (CFG) - 68% (ACU) - 67% (FreedomWorks)

Burr (NC) - 2016 - 57% (Average) - 49% (CReview) - 41% (Heritage) - 74% (CFG) - 88% (ACU) - 33% (FreedomWorks)

Blunt (MO) - 2016 - 55% (Average) - 38% (CReview) - 63% (Heritage) - 47% (CFG) - 76% (ACU) - 50% (FreedomWorks)

Hoeven (ND) - 2016 - 52% (Average) - 26% (CReview) - 53% (Heritage) - 47% (CFG) - 68% (ACU) - 67% (FreedomWorks)

Portman (OH) - 2016 - 49% (Average) - 54% (CReview) - 29% (Heritage) - 77% (CFG) - 68% (ACU) - 17% (FreedomWorks)

Ayotte (NH) - 2016 - 45% (Average) - 41% (CReview) - 29% (Heritage) - 60% (CFG) - 63% (ACU) - 33% (FreedomWorks)

Kirk (IL) - 2016 - 32% (Average) - 28% (CReview) - 17% (Heritage) - 36% (CFG) - 64% (ACU) - 17% (FreedomWorks)

Murkowski (AK) - 2016 - 31% (Average) - 20% (CReview) - 35% (Heritage) - 27% (CFG) - 41% (ACU) - 33% (FreedomWorks)

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’ve reached a point where I’d like to see:

1. No politician allowed to vote for 5 years on any issue related to any industry he accepts money from.

2. Government funded elections for top three potential candidates, with no donations from any but individual contributors. $250 max contribution per voting age person. No borrowing extra money.

4. No group donations, bundling, etc

5. Term limits

6. No public pensions nor compensation above the private sector.

7. Zero based budgeting required

8. No income taxes.

9. Balanced budget except during declared war.

10. Repeal of popular election of senators.

11 . I know, it’s too late... But let’s dream

12. Loser pays civil suits

13. Limit on immigration for a time

14. English as only official language of all government activities and all commercial transactions

😎

[Georgia Girl 2]

Of course you and I will still be limited to $4,700. Wouldn’t want the people to get too much say so in these elections.

[gusty]

You might or might not be right. But so what. You have to look to the higher principle if you want to move the ball down the field. If you just concern yourself with short term advantage, then we will just muddle along in the unfree column. I again I reiterate that the liberty position is free elections not regulated by big government. If I want to give gizzilions of dollars to candidate or party X, it is my right under the 1st Amendment to do so. If someone gets us closer to what I see as liberty, then I will support him, no matter the short term interparty advantage.

[GOPJ]

McConnell’s wrong on this issue.

[itsahoot]

We no longer live in a representative republic or even the mob-rule of a democracy anymore. We live in an oligarchy and it is being run by people that could give a squat about 97% of the people of this nation. Any "conservative" that still believes that big business is their ally needs to seriously get a clue and take a cold hard look at what has been going on for the last 20 years.

It took a complacent/complicit Congress to bring this about they won't be undoing it any time soon. Remember how quickly Mitch relinquished the veto power Harry created for himself.

[RitaOK]

Truth.

[RitaOK]

We need to lose Kelly Ayotte! Honestly, a Democrat votes no worse than she does. Thanks for the voting record list!

[L,TOWM]

I’d sign that memo...

All of it.