Daily Campaign Finance Reform thread

[Valin]

From the Sac-Bee

How campaign law evolved Financing measure may become a 'case study,' scholar says.

By Greg Gordon

WASHINGTON -- Now that the Supreme Court has upheld most of Congress' controversial overhaul of the federal campaign finance system, historians will likely recognize the 2002 law "as a case study on how to legislate," a congressional scholar says. Unlike a 1974 post-Watergate rewrite of election laws that was eviscerated in court rulings, every provision in last year's law was "based on hearings and findings and research" so it could withstand court scrutiny, said Norman Ornstein.

Ornstein should know. He was involved in crafting key provisions and is rejoicing Wednesday's ruling that capped a six-year, behind-the-scenes effort.

Studying Congress for the American Enterprise Institute, Ornstein said he watched the 1996 election campaign in amazement as a new form of political advertising flooded the airwaves, skirting federal regulation.

As much as $150 million in "issue ads," aired by political parties and nonprofit groups across the spectrum, harshly attacked or lavishly praised federal candidates without directly calling for their election or defeat. Savvy election lawyers had scoured Supreme Court rulings protective of groups' and individuals' free speech rights, deducing that if their ads tiptoed near -- but never crossed -- that line, they could elude federal campaign laws.

And the Republican and Democratic parties realized they could finance their own unregulated ads with huge amounts of soft money from corporations and labor unions -- even though both had been banned for decades from making political donations.

Ornstein saw the ads and the gush of special-interest money as symptoms that the federal campaign finance system was out of control, heightening the public's perception of corruption. And he felt that congressional proposals for so-called campaign finance reform were mired in an ideological divide: Democrats wanted a public financing system; Republicans were adamantly opposed.

In early 1997, Ornstein convened a small working group of some of the nation's leading campaign finance scholars in an effort to end the gridlock. Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., chief sponsors of the congressional legislation, embraced the group's more modest proposal -- which focused on banning corporate and union soft-money donations to the parties and raising individual donation limits -- but it went nowhere.

Even after 1998 congressional hearings exposed alleged selling of access for cash during the 1996 campaign by the Clinton White House, congressional leaders and the parties stymied the McCain-Feingold bill. Ornstein said Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, asked Ornstein's group for ideas on how to curb corporate and union dollars without killing the bill.

By then, his group was expanding. The scholars were doing their own line-by-line review of three campaign finance-related Supreme Court rulings dating to 1976. They concluded that the justices had left room for redrawing the line between regulated and free speech surrounding elections.

The group ultimately wrote a narrowly tailored amendment sponsored by Snowe and Sen. James Jeffords, a Vermont independent, that gave crucial balance to the soft-money ban. It bars outside groups from using corporate or union money to finance any election-season issue ad that identifies a federal candidate.

In the end, a narrow majority of five Supreme Court justices was swayed by the argument that most issue ads broadcast near an election are shams. The justices praised the soft money ban and the issue ad restraints as "complementary."

[Valin]

If you want to be on or off this CFR-ping list let me know.

[Guillermo]

Is Bush's signing of CFR more palatable because he indicated that the courts should review some of the more onerous provisions in the law?

I say NO. This is called passing the buck.

I suspect that he and Congress knew the law would stand up to the courts and Bush was just in CYA mode.

[freedomcrusader]

In the end, a narrow majority of five Supreme Court justices was swayed by the argument that most issue ads broadcast near an election are shams.

Great, the Supreme Court of the United States thinks political speech around election time is a "sham".

[Valin]

He tried to get "cute". This is why we need to put pressure on congress to recind this law.
Remember 04 IS an election year. There is no better time to put pressure on your local representative to get rid of this abortion. It's stupid and unenforceable, and contray to what 5 members of the ussc says unconstitutional.
Money for better or worse WILL find it's way into the system.

[Guillermo]

I'm not convinced Bush didn't want it all along.

After all, actions are louder than words.

[Congressman Billybob]

Norman Ornstein is now, and always has been, a shill for the leftists. He has no more interest in the Constitution than a majority of the Justices in the McConnell case. It is a minor impediment to be jumped over, and to wipe your feet on as you pass.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "In Praise of Bigotry," discussion thread. (ChronWatch used a longer title than my original.)

[Protagoras]

Is Bush's signing of CFR more palatable because he indicated that the courts should review some of the more onerous provisions in the law? I say NO. This is called passing the buck.

Not to mention, he has since applauded the fact that it has been upheld.

[Guillermo]

It's amazing to see all the people on here who ascribe zero responsibility for this horrible law to Bush.

He SIGNED it. If he signed it, that means he WANTED it.

[Kevin Curry]

In the end, a narrow majority of five Supreme Court justices was swayed by the argument that most issue ads broadcast near an election are shams.

Thus a SCOTUS majority and Congress have made a wholly subjective judgment about the quality of someone else's speech about fundamental political matters, found it wanting, and declared it forbidden. Worse, the judgment is prospective and arbitrary because it it characterizes all such speech as "sham" without ever bothering to hear it.

This is beyond appalling.

[proud American in Canada]

Good morning! Thanks for the new thread, Valin.

Remember everyone, the motto is: WWTPD? (What would Thomas Paine do). ;) (by the way, I don't mean to belittle faith!).

Okay, I can't be around much today, but after this, I'm going to send Rush the letter I wrote yesterday to Tom Tancredo, and the letter I just sent to Sen. McConnell (I attached a copy of yesterday's letter to Sen. McConnell).

Here it is:

Dear Senator McConnell:

I would like to thank you for trying to protect the First Amendment rights of Americans. Your efforts are appreciated and the fact that those efforts did not result in ultimate victory in the Supreme Court has left thousands of people across the country in shock.

I belong to a grassroots conservative organization, FreeRepublic.com and we are organizing a movement to have the campaign finance reform law repealed immediately. Our goal is to have someone present a bill on the first day that Congress is in session next January.

Yesterday, I sent a letter to Representative Tom Tancredo; as a former resident of Denver, I knew of his solid conservative values. Whether or not he would be the best person to initiate this bill, whether or not it should be co-sponsored, I do not know.

I’ve attached a copy of this letter; I also sent it to Mike Rosen, of KOA radio in Denver, and I’m pleased to say that he actually responded to me and indicated that he thinks a repeal, and promoting such a repeal on his show, is a “great idea.”

I’m prepared to send similar letters to talk radio hosts across the country, including, of course, Rush Limbaugh, who has opposed CFR from the beginning.

I hope you will be in touch with Representative Tancredo and others who will back this idea, and that you can help us organize something to immediately repeal this outrageous assault on the most fundamental freedom, the one that guarantees all others.

Thank you for any assistance you can provide.

[proud American in Canada]

"Remember 04 IS an election year. There is no better time to put pressure on your local representative to get rid of this abortion. It's stupid and unenforceable, and contray to what 5 members of the ussc says unconstitutional."

Well said... and as I said yesterday, I think the "quo" should come before the "quid" this time.

[proud American in Canada]

"Not to mention, he has since applauded the fact that it has been upheld."

I heard that--I haven't seen the article, I just saw some posts about it--but that's outrageous.

[Protagoras]

They wouldn't blame him for ANYTHING at all, no matter what.

The only thing that would even make them raise their eyebrows would be the discovery that he was getting BJs in the Oval office. They would still defend him, but they would raise their eyebrows while they did it.

[Protagoras]

His trusted employees have been applauding the decision. It was in the papers the day after the decision.

[Protagoras]

This is beyond appalling.

But,,,,,,The Republicans and GWB are not responsible, they were victims not perpetrators. < /sarcasm>

It was those bad ole Dems and justices.

[Valin]

This is beyond appalling!

Agree. So get out there and do something about it.
Letters!(e-mails are good but actual letters are better)

If congress gets hit with 1,000s of letters (trust me) they WILL pay attention, particularly in an election year.

Remember for a politician the most important thing is getting relected, we need to use this.

[Valin]

I'll keep it going as long as there appears to be interest in it, and it doesn't degenerate into a Bush-bashing party.
As For better or worse George is my guy.
While this is important it pales in importance to the war on terror.

[Lazamataz]

Two suggestions: 1, label the day this thread is for in the title. 2, you and I should work together on the 'splash screen', the initial message in the thread.

[CasearianDaoist]

This is why we need to put pressure on congress to recind this law. Yes, How do we do this? we need an all out campaign from a grass from a grass roots level. I am serious - how do we do this> I will help. This business fills me with fear.