As usual, the rich have a campaign finance loophole-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 32

Capitol Hill Blue / AP ^ | SHARON THEIMER

[Valin]

Like businesses and unions, the wealthy can no longer make big donations to the national parties. But well-heeled givers do have a special chance to influence elections through last-minute ads. An exemption in the new campaign finance law lets individual donors give unlimited amounts to certain tax-exempt, unincorporated groups to pay for TV and radio ads targeting candidates just before elections.

Large Democratic donors have already donated or pledged $10 million to a new group called the Media Fund formed by former Clinton White House official Harold Ickes to air ads next year against President Bush.
"I think we fully understand the law and we're not going to break it," Ickes said in a telephone interview from California, where he met with prospective Hollywood donors last week.

Silicon Valley executive Steve Kirsch said he will donate to Ickes' group, possibly to the tune of six or seven figures. Harvey Weinstein, co-chairman of the Miramax movie studio, is studying groups such as Ickes' and probably will support them, spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said.
Multibillionaire businessman George Soros, who has already pledged at least $10 million to a Democratic-leaning get-out-the-vote group, may also donate to the Media Fund, Ickes said.

Not to be outdone, Republicans have already mustered an answer to Ickes' effort. Americans for a Better Country, a group whose founders include former Bush Florida recount lawyer George Terwilliger, has asked the Federal Election Commission for guidance on the legality of collecting and spending soft money, including on election ads.

The option is so attractive that some traditional political groups, such as the GOP-leaning Club for Growth, are considering shedding their incorporated status to qualify for the right to influence elections with big-dollar ads down the stretch.
"I'm sure if and when that ever happens it will drive all the campaign finance reformers batty. But it clearly is allowed by the law," said David Keating, executive director of the Club for Growth.
Keating's group already collects several five- and six-figure donations from business executives, including at least $75,000 in recent months from Arkansas banking magnate Jackson Stephens.

It is waiting to see how the Supreme Court rules on challenges to the law before it decides whether to try the strategy. A court ruling could come this month.
The law, which took effect in November 2002, bans national party committees from raising soft money - unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy people - and imposes new limits on political ads.

Interest groups cannot air TV and radio ads the month before a primary and two months before a general election if they identify a federal candidate, are funded with corporate or union money or target the candidate's district.

The exception is any large donation given by an individual to spend on ads by tax-exempt groups that are not legally incorporated and which keep any large individual donations they receive for ads separate from corporate and union donations.
The first big tests for that exemption are approaching.
The ad restrictions will come into play in the presidential race starting Dec. 14, 30 days before the District of Columbia's nonbinding primary. They next kick in Dec. 20 in Iowa, which holds its caucuses Jan. 19, and Dec. 28 in New Hampshire, where the primary is Jan. 27.

Campaign finance watchdog Fred Wertheimer, who helped congressional sponsors write the law, said they had no choice but to allow the use of unlimited individual donations for political ads. He cited the landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, which found that individuals' political expenditures were a form of free speech.
He vowed, however, to watch closely groups that try to spend such money on ads. "I'm not giving a Good Housekeeping seal of approval," Wertheimer said. "I'm watching what these guys are doing."

Individual donors have always been permitted to run their own ads with their own money, but Democratic donor Kirsch said his ad dollars will have more impact if a political group spends them.
"They're a lot more organized in terms of understanding what media should be run where," he said.

© 2003 The Associated Press
© Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue

[Valin]

Yesterdays Thread
Judge Sets Dates for Lawsuit Against FEC
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1055313/posts


Note If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
17	Minnesota	625.00	17	36.76	250	2.50	100.00	7

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[Valin]

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

[Eastbound]

Good morning, Valin. Keep on trucking. More loose ends popping up, eh? Maybe one of them will be the fuse. ;>

[DustyMoment]

Why am I not surprised by this? When Congress writes a bill, Congress knows where all the loopholes are so that they can exploit them.

McCain needs to be . . . (can't say what I really think here) RECALLED!!!!!

[Valin]

Reason #571 why this is a BAD idea.

If I were a young law student I'd start boning up on election law, lotta money to be made on this.

[Valin]

Does AZ have a recall law?
If not he really needs to be challenged when next he runs.

[The_Eaglet]

Interest groups cannot air TV and radio ads the month before a primary and two months before a general election if they identify a federal candidate, are funded with corporate or union money or target the candidate's district.

In other words, Congress passed a law "abridging the freedom of speech," contrary to the First Amendment.

[DustyMoment]

I'll check. I have a friend who lives out there.

[Brellium]

Yes, Arizona has a recall law, it's just too bad we can't recall the person who signed the bill into law.

All kidding aside now, I'll remind everyone on this thread that one of the primary reasons we have a democrat as the governer in this state is going back to the primaries our governer backed Bush. McCain still won this states primary, if I remember correctly at about 91-6, and that backing of Bush essentially ended the political life of our then governer. As my grandmother so eloquently put it, you don't support an outsider over the states own canidate.

I'll also add a short time after McCains passing of the CFR there was a recall attempt launced against him and it failed, rather amazingly. It is very unlikely that if a canidate was placed against mccain in the primaries that the canidate would beat mccain.

Arizonas republican party is quite different than that of other states. (and if it were Bush vs McCain again this year I'd bet he'd still carry Arizona)

As a side note there are two things Zonies hate, 1) being lied to, and 2) outsiders involved in the states politics. I would actually go out on a limb and say #2 trumps all.

[DustyMoment]

I checked with my friend in AZ. I gather that they have a recall provision but he said there's not a snowball's chance in . . . AZ of it ever being exercised on McCain. We're apparently stuck with the RINO POS until he retires or takes the dirt nap.

[Valin]

Thanks for the info.
Recall Mc Cain, well I can dream can't I.

[DustyMoment]

We ALL share that dream, Valin!!

:-)