Terry McAuliffe's nightmare

Washington Times ^ | 2/21/03

[kattracks]

Somebody should have told Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairman Terry McAuliffe to be careful what he wished for, because he just might get it. For years, Mr. McAuliffe, a world-class soft-money fund-raiser, publicly pursued the passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, one of whose primary features was a ban on soft money. Well, last year Mr. McAuliffe's public wish came true: Congress passed the latest version of McCain-Feingold, and President Bush, unlike his father in 1992, declined to veto the reform package and, instead, signed it into law.

[twntaipan]

I really hurt for McAwful---NOT!

[kattracks]

ping

[jla]

FYI

[Joe Boucher]

This guy drips in sleeze. It is befitting that he is most associated with the disgraced former president. Have to wonder how much lucre he and the klintoons have skimmed off the dems for their own use.
Wouldn't let either of them alone with my 16 year old son.
Both buggerers.

[Coop]

Curiously the article didn't even mention the formidable challenge the Senate Dems are facing in 2004. [snicker]

[Mudboy Slim]

"Mr. McAuliffe, a world-class soft-money fund-raiser, publicly pursued the passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill, one of whose primary features was a ban on soft money. Well, last year Mr. McAuliffe's public wish came true: Congress passed the latest version of McCain-Feingold, and President Bush, unlike his father in 1992, declined to veto the reform package and, instead, signed it into law."

I've gotta confess that I thought Dubyuh's signing of the CFR legislation was a low-point in his Administration so far, but this Soft Money Ban has been a major coup to date!! Any word on the court proceedings to overturn the Ban on television advertising 60 days before and election. If this portion of the bill is overturned fer being un-constitutional--as it should be--Dubyuh's signing of the CFR legislation could end up being a master-stroke of genius!!

FReegards...MUD

[PhiKapMom]

It is in the courts! Not sure when it is going to be heard. Figured soft money ban was going to really hurt the RATs which is what you could say is poetic justice.

[shamusotoole]

It is my bet that Mr. McAuliffe has been out raising money on a conditional basis, predicated upon whether the 'soft' money ban passes SCOTUS muster. If it doesn't, he'll be far ahead in the game. I would also be investigating his contacts now, in light of past DNC illegalities.

Got your 'ears' on RNC. We had better make them politically pay for their transgressions early, rather than after they have won and fire all the US Attorneys. Where have we seen that scenario before?

[Mudboy Slim]

"Any word on the court proceedings to overturn the Ban on television advertising 60 days before and election. If this portion of the bill is overturned fer being un-constitutional--as it should be--Dubyuh's signing of the CFR legislation could end up being a master-stroke of genius!!"

"It is in the courts! Not sure when it is going to be heard."

Any idea on the status of this court case, y'all?!!

FReegards...MUD

[Mudboy Slim]

"I would also be investigating his contacts now, in light of past DNC illegalities. Got your 'ears' on RNC. We had better make them politically pay for their transgressions early, rather than after they have won and fire all the US Attorneys."

EXACTLY!!! GOP needs to go on the OFFENSIVE regarding the DemonRAT Sleaze Factor...DO NOT WAIT fer the VastLeftWingMedyuhWhore'd to report it 'cuz they won't until the DOJ makes it an issue!!

The Best Defense is a Good Offense...MUD

[Liz]

The US Chamber of Commerce (which is challenging CFR) represented by election law expert Jan Baran of Wiley, Rein & Fielding (member of Mitch McConnell's legal team) won a unanimous victory in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in early 2002 regarding issue ads in judicial races.....latest in a series of court decisions maintaining that the First Amendment takes precedence over government's right to regulate elections.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...a series of court decisions maintaining that the First Amendment takes precedence over government's right to regulate elections."

Excellent!! FReeRepublic.com ROCKS...MUD

BTW...have you seen any good threads documenting this series of court decisions?!

[BluH2o]

No mention in this article (of course) about Chicom soft money contributions to the democ"rats". Contributions from foreign sources is illegal ... but then again "illegal" to the "rats" simply means you find away around it ... knowing you'll never be held accountable.

[Liz]

CIRCA 2002: US District Judge in Hawaii has already ruled that portion of the CFR law unconstitutional, in allowing Hawaii Right to Life to make its statements with respect to the two special elections being conducted there for the 2nd Congressional District. That decision may help persuade this trial court to rule against these provisions.

[Mudboy Slim]

Since Virginia has off-year elections fer State offices this Fall, I was hoping that our elections would serve as an opportunity to challenge the "No Advertising Within 60 days of an Election" portion of CFR; however, I'm thinking that the CFR laws only relate to Congressional and Senate and Presidential elections. Anybody know fer sure?!

FReegards...MUD

[Republic]

Terry gives me chills. When I see any democrat lately-I see hooded horrors with hungry fingers searching for my pockets.

[sultan88]

"I'm thinking that the CFR laws only relate to Congressional and Senate and Presidential elections."

Yes, I believe it does not affect state and local elections.

[Nick Danger]

[Liz]

National Parties. Bans national parties from raising and spending soft money.

Prohibition on soft money solicitation. Prohibits Federal officeholders and candidates from soliciting or raising soft money for political parties at Federal, state, and local levels, and from soliciting or raising soft money in connection with Federal elections.


State parties. Prohibits state parties and local party committees from using soft money to pay for TV ads that mention Federal candidates and get-out-the-vote activities that mention Federal candidates. Permits state parties and local party committees to use contributions, up to $10,000 per donor per year, for generic GOTV activities and for GOTV activities for state and local candidates. Each state party or local committee must raise its own contributions and a portion of each expenditure must include hard money.


Reins in sham issue ads. Prohibits the use of corporate and union treasury money for broadcast communications that mention a Federal candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary and are targeted at the candidate's electorate. (Unions and corporations can finance these ads through their PACs.) Requires individuals and groups of individuals to disclose contributions and expenditures for similar broadcast communications.


Increases individual contributions limits. Raises limits on individual contributions to House, Senate and Presidential campaigns to $2,000 and indexes for inflation.


Effective date. Soft money ban and other provisions take effect November 6, 2002. Changes in contribution limits take effect January 1, 2003.

Severability provision. If any provision of the bill is held unconstitutional, the remainder of the bill is not affected.