Replies

Um, PACs can still buy issue ads even the day before an election. I think they just can't name a specific candidate, the intent of this rule being to avoid last-minute hit pieces like they tried on Arnold. So, for example, a pro-life PAC could certainly run an ad on November 2004 saying "Democrats want to bring back partial birth abortions - vote Republican", but they could not say on November 2, 2004, "A woman from Vermont today charged that Howard Dean, whose medical training came from Planned Parenthood, ate her aborted fetus with a fine chianti". It's meant to avoid last-minute personal smear ads, but PACs still can discuss and buy issue-related ads, so it's not as bad as you're making it out to be.

I agree with you that I don't like the 1st Amendment implications (though I am not totally comfortable with the idea that money = speech... I think what Soros is doing is way wrong). But quite frankly, given the fact that Republicans receive more small donor money, CFR hurts Democrats far more than it does Republicans, not only because Republicans will get more legal funding out of it than Democrats can, but also because MANY MANY people are aware that Democrats are totally violating the letter and spirit of CFR while Republicans, who generally opposed it, are obeying both the letter and the spirit of it. That is going to be a massive campaign issue, I believe, and in the end Soros's contributions are going to hurt Dems more than they will help. The net result, IMO, if the Republican "base" doesn't screw everything up, will be such a huge Republicans mandate with enough -real- conservatives in power that we won't have to give a rat's ass what the Dems think, and real conservatives will be able to repeal CFR easily for the major debacle it became.

I don't like the principles behind CFR any more than you do. But from a pragmatic point of view, it is once again demonstrating how incredibly arrogant and hypocritical the Dems are, and they're so off-the-rails this election that they aren't even hiding it anymore. In that sense, I'm almost glad CFR went through. The payoff will come in 2004, where we see enough conservatives come into power that RINOs won't be able to turn the tide anymore. Again, that's IF the "base" doesn't pitch a tantrum and screw it all up.

Qwinn

No, PAC's are the most limited because the are "outside sources" according to the bill.

Actually, the only thing that helps Bush is the fact that he's not taking federal funds so doesn't have to adhere to the CFR laws. But so did Dean.

So it now comes down, if Dean is the nominee (doubtful), to who can raise the most money. Isn't this scenario excactly OPPOSITE of what CFR tried to "fix"?

P.S. If I had Soros money, I'd do the same thing.

I'd start all kinds of 527's and fund them.

Heck, I'd give $1 million to FreeRepublic alone just to encourage this form of free speech.

But CFR is heading down the road of trying to even ban this format.

Bottom line: Bush should have vetoed it. It's that simple.