Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 42

With Connecticut voters inundated by tales of free hot tubs and buried treasure for top state officials, some Democratic lawmakers are proclaiming the 2004 legislative session the year of ethics. The thinking is that Republicans can't oppose reforms and survive at the ballot box this November, so last week, the legislature's Government Administration Elections Committee raised a series of bills that would plug the legal holes exposed by Gov. John G. Rowland's errant ways.
These bits of legislation (such as tougher fines, and protection for the Ethics Commission from budget-slashing) should pass with little opposition.
But tucked at the foot of the agenda is another, more controversial bill: comprehensive campaign finance reform. This idea -- vetoed by Rowland in 2000 -- would remove private donations from the political landscape. Instead of raising campaign contributions from, oh, construction companies looking for state contracts, politicians could access a public fund and free themselves from the scratch-my-back pressures inherent in fundraising.

"The quid pro quo of bundled contributions paved the way for the quid pro quo of illegal gifts," says state Rep. Andrew Fleischmann (D-West Hartford). "It is plain for anyone to see."

Of all the bills suggested last week, public financing of elections is the only reform aimed at the roots of corruption, the only bill that is proactive rather than reactive. In the past, though, Republicans react to the idea with a fury. Not only that -- Democratic leaders have also been lukewarm to the idea, at best.
"This is where the fight is going to be," says Tom Swan , executive director of the Connecticut Citizen Action Group. Expect a strong campaign on the issue, Swan says, including a conservative Republican official from Arizona who got elected on clean money testifying in front of a legislative hearing Feb. 2.

As for the chances of success, "Who do you think would want to be noted on the record as killing campaign finance reform in this environment?" Fleischmann asks. Well, Scoop can predict the usual arguments: Republicans claiming that this is no time to be putting money aside for politicians when poverty programs are being cut. But Fleischmann responds that if the bill costs $5 million per year, the CRRA/ Enron scandal -- where, according to the state AG, the Rowland-controlled trash authority made an illegal $220 million loan to a corporate cheat -- could pay for 44 years' worth of clean elections. "From a taxpayer's perspective, it's a bargain," he says.

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

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob

Update
I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:

We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)

Cordially,

John / Billybob

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.