The Legacy of Compassionate Conservatism [Rush Limbaugh on the Campaign Reform SCOTUS fiasco]

The mainstream media is protected from the campaign finance law. Yes, Congress has limited the right to free speech of "We the People," but left the media's power intact. In fact, it's actually enhanced the media's power by letting them dominate the airwaves 30 to 60 days before an election.

But let me ask you a simple question: "If the Supreme Court can limit free speech today - under, I cannot believe, a GOP president, House and Senate - why can't it limit freedom of the press tomorrow? Once you amend the Constitution this way, anything goes!

Those who don't respect liberty - and by that I mean the left, these phony political reformers, most editorial pages and five Supreme Court justices - can't have it both ways. If the Constitution can be amended on the fly like this rather than through the 3/4ths majority in both houses of Congress and the states, then no aspect of the Constitution is safe from this kind of manipulation. All it's going to take is somebody in Congress to write a law saying, "We're going to put some regulations and restrictions on the broadcast and print media," and bingo...

Will that ever happen? No. The Congress is afraid of the media, but they are not afraid of you. Thus they felt free to pass a law taking away your most basic freedom: political speech. Why? What did you do wrong? Why, you corrupted the process! Yes, the way this ruling came down and the way the law was written, your rotten, dirty money is corrupting out courageous and brave elected officials. Why, as soon as they take a dime, they turn from angels into corrupt monsters! You're ruining their morals! So if you try to buy an ad, well, now there's a law to stop you rotten jerks!

I took some calls on this story, which you can hear below. These came from the same sort of people who were so sure Bush would veto the bill, or that the Supreme Court would overturn it, "So why fight it?" Frank in Auburn, Maine asked, "How long do you think it's going to be before we have a midnight session to overturn this in the Congress?" I gently told Frank that the very Congress that passed this abomination, and that is now insulated as incumbents from the annoying voices of you idiot voters, is not going to now right what it did. Hello?

They're overjoyed about this! So is the media - which debunks another caller's claim that the press would miss the ad revenue they'll lose from political ads. They'll still get the cash from all these other groups who've weaseled out of this law. This is worthy of more than a "whine," folks. After all, members of the House and Senate can easily get face time on TV. That's why I called this the "Incumbent Protection Act." This is a day of darkness, folks. We may as well be Hobbits, with dark cloaked figures looking for our rings.

Michael Barone, a brilliant guy, wrote the other day that this president is redefining conservatism from limited government to a government of choice and accountability. I disagreed with Mr. Barone for the first time in my life about something. Not only are we not advancing limited government, we are now limiting choice and accountability by restricting freedom of speech. We're not expanding anything that's conservative, here. We're not expanding liberty or expanding freedom - which is choice. That is the antithesis of what happened in the Supreme Court.

When all is said and done, when it comes to domestic issues, it looks to me like the legacy of the Republican control of Congress and the presidency for the first time in 50 years is going to be the largest entitlement in modern times, the greatest increase in domestic spending in modern times and one of the greatest set-backs for liberty in modern times. That's the legacy of Republican control of government. This may be "compassionate" conservatism, but it's not "conservatism" at all.

The same thing you've been doing all along. Only you can give more.

This just came across the AP wire:

Campaign Finance Ruling Gives GOP Edge

By SHARON THEIMER
.c The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress.

Democrats will have to try to make up the difference through outside groups exempt from most of the new restrictions.

Several Democratic-leaning groups are already in action, raising millions in corporate, union and unlimited ``soft money'' donations that the national parties can no longer accept under the new law.

With an eye toward unseating President Bush and taking control of Congress, they plan to finance the get-out-the-vote drives and political issue ads that their party has underwritten in the past with large soft money checks.

Republican activists had largely held off on forming new outside groups, waiting to learn the law's fate while the GOP and Bush built a commanding advantage in raising the limited donations permitted under the law. With the justices' ruling, Republicans are now aiming to match the Democratic soft-money groups dollar-for-dollar.

``If the other side is going to raise tens of millions of dollars in soft money and if the Supreme Court says it's OK to spend that on political activity, then we would be foolish not to play by the same rules,'' said Frank Donatelli, a GOP consultant and co-founder of Americans for a Better Country, a pro-Bush group. The group is vetting its plans with the Federal Election Commission before going ahead.

Meanwhile, congressional and presidential candidates and the national political parties must abide by the new restrictions that took effect after the 2002 elections and have now been upheld by the high court after months of legal uncertainty. The law lets candidates collect twice as much from each individual donor - $2,000 - as they could in the last election.

``It has forced elected officials to reach out to more people for smaller contributions,'' said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., a sponsor of the campaign finance law who along with his colleagues must run for re-election next year.

Republicans have long raised more than Democrats in so-called hard money donations, which come from individuals and political action committees and are limited in size. But Democrats made a push in the 1990s to narrow the gap by raising corporate and union donations aggressively. The GOP also raised lots of soft money.

With that gone, Republicans enjoy an instant advantage.

The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House counterparts together raised $173 million in hard money through the first 10 months of the year, compared to just $75 million for the three national Democratic committees.

Bush has already raised more than $100 million for his re-election, compared with the top Democratic presidential fund-raiser, Howard Dean, who had about $25 million at the end of September.

``Today's ruling breaks the Democrats' back,'' National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds boasted.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe disagreed, saying his push to enlist more small donors is paying off. The DNC has gone from 400,000 direct-mail donors to more than 1 million over the past several months, and has eliminated its debt.

``I'm sitting here with $10 million in the bank,'' McAuliffe said. ``We have transformed the DNC from a soft money committee to a hard money committee.''

McAuliffe said he intends to raise $185 million for get-out-the-vote drives and other activities in presidential swing states. That's the same amount the DNC had to back 2000 nominee Al Gore, but now it must do without the $105 million in soft money it had then

Special-interest groups also must operate under new rules. In the month before a primary and the two months before an election, they cannot use corporate or union money for ads targeting candidates.

Groups whose finances include corporate and union money say they'll still find ways to play a part in next year's elections.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will spend on phone banks and direct mail, among other activities. The AFL-CIO has said the law won't prevent it from spending millions trying to get its members to the polls.

The National Rifle Association plans to ask each of its 4 million members to give at least $20 to its political action committee, money it could use for direct candidate support, including ads calling for candidates' election or defeat.

``It's not going to shut us up,'' NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre said of Wednesday's ruling. ``And we're up to the task, so stay tuned.''

But with the legal issues now settled by the Supreme Court, the big test of the new system will occur with the new outside soft money groups that are cropping up.

``I think it clearly underscores the need to do what we're doing,'' said Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House official who has formed one such group called the Media Fund which intends to raise $10 million to help elect Democrats next year.

EDITOR'S NOTE - Sharon Theimer covers political fund raising and special-interest lobbying in Washington.

12/10/03 17:36 EST

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.