Campaign finance reform changes the rules of engagement-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 30

As election year 2004 heats up, state political parties may have to raise more cash than ever to finance campaigns as they operate under the new campaign finance reforms passed by Congress.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the sweeping McCain-Feingold reforms that ban unlimited "soft money" contributions to national political parties and restrict issue ads in the weeks leading up to elections. The reforms were designed to lessen the influence of big money on elections.

Prior to the law's passage, wealthy corporations, unions and individuals were able to direct large contributions to political parties and avoid the limits that apply to contributions to specific candidates. No more.

While the legislation primarily deals with the national political parties, it will have implications for state parties, too. National parties and federal candidates no longer will be allowed to funnel soft money donations through state parties. According to the Institute on Money in State Politics, North Dakota parties received $3.9 million in soft contributions from the national parties in 2002.

While the reforms are expected to hurt Democrats more than Republicans nationally, it could be the opposite in North Dakota. GOP chairman Ken Karls said the Republican party has always relied on small donations for the majority of its funding, and turned to national committees to offset large infusions of cash to the Democratic party from wealthy special interest groups and individuals.

"Large, well-funded liberal special interest groups will be able to pour money into North Dakota as effectively or more effectively as ever," he said. "We are going to have to fight that. ... There's going to be all kinds of dollars coming in here and it's going to be legal. It just rechanneled."

But the GOP will no longer be able to rely on help from national GOP committees.

"It shuts off the one avenue we had in trying to blunt some of that," he said. "It is a new world now."

Consequently, the party may not be able to afford to do some things and will lean on district officials to expand and support the party more than ever. "We're going to need each other more," Karls said.

Democratic party director Vern Thompson said he doesn't expect the new law to have much impact on the way he does his job, although it could put his star fund-raisers, the congressmen, on the sidelines. The legislation bars congressmen or their "surrogates" from soliciting contributions to state parties, a practice the state Democratic party has profited handsomely from in the past. But nothing would prevent wealthy donors from continuing to donate to the parties without being asked, and some say they believe such donations could actually increase because big donors will have fewer places to put their money under the new regulations.

Thompson said party officials have been preparing for the legislation since it passed Congress. It went into effect the day after the November 2002 mid-term elections.

The law also restricts "issue ads" in the weeks leading up to elections, because they're often thinly veiled attacks on candidates or puffery of a preferred candidate. Corporations and unions are now banned from airing the ads and now parties may only pay for them with "hard money."

Free Republic!

It's a wonderful site!
Please help keep it that way. Make a donation!

HOORAY For John!

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.

Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

And again from the blogasphere
Feds need McCain-Feingold in their ass
Posted by Al Barger on December 12, 2003 12:24 AM
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/12/002430.php

In a typically excellent column, Jonah Goldberg criticizes blogland for the minimal response that has been made to the Supreme Court's ridiculous decision in the McConnell case upholding the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

He's right. This kind of REAL freedom of speech issue [not some brought on crap about federal funding for piss-christs] should have us all up in arms, and it just doesn't. [Special recognition, however, to Blogcritic Tom Bux for a two-fisted shout for freedom.]

Let me do my little bit to help rectify this lack of blogger responsiveness to this important ruling against our most basic freedom: the feds need the McCain-Feingold law in their ass. I mean, they need it up there sideways, three or four copies of it- in braille for extra pleasure.

All three branches of the federal government now have colluded to tell us that we can't speak out against politicians running for office. NARAL and the NRA and even goddam NAMBLA should have every right to take out tv ads or billboards saying what they think about a presidential candidate or congressmen. You know, petitioning for a redress of grievances in the most direct manner- making their case to their fellow citizens for why we need to replace the miserable sobs in charge.

By my lights, McCain-Feingold rates as a FAR worse encroachment of our civil liberties than anything in the Patriot Act- and with far less justification. There may be legitimate concerns about "enemy combatants" being held in Gitmo that bear judicial scrutiny. However, that concerns maybe a few hundred people who are being held- and they are at least supposedly enemies trying to kill Americans.

On the other hand, McCain-Feingold slams the lid on the free expression of just the most important kind of speech by tens of millions of Americans. Supposedly, they want us to get involved and speak out on the issues of the day.

Every election cycle, all the politicians work themselves up into a lather over the lack of democratic participation. Yeah, well, actions speak louder than words. This law tells you what they REALLY think about mere citizens sticking their noses into the business of government.

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.