FEC restricts use of 'soft money'-Campaign Finance Reform Thread - Day 71

Washington Times ^ | 2/19/04 | Steve Miller

[Valin]

The Federal Election Commission yesterday voted 4-2 to place restrictions on political advocacy groups with no expressed party affiliation that use "soft money" to influence elections.

At the same time, the six-member commission delayed a decision on a campaign-finance law that prohibits money from big businesses and unions from going to tax-exempt groups that are connected to political parties.

[Valin]

GOP-funding fight seen as wrong move

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040221-121511-5167r.htm
By Steve Miller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES



The national Republican Party has alienated its base and is using a "boneheaded strategy" in its attempt to stymie special interest groups that are raising money to influence this year's presidential election, the Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission said yesterday.
"[T]he [Republican National Committee] is out of sync with the rank-and-file Republicans in the U.S. ... the base is alienated," Commission Chairman Bradley Smith told The Washington Times.
Mr. Smith's comments came two days after he scolded the Republican Party at a public meeting for its attempt to shut down specially created, tax-exempt groups, known as 527s, that are raising millions of dollars, primarily in unlimited "soft money" donations from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals, for get-out-the-vote efforts and issue ads.
The commissioner, one of three Republican appointees on the six-member panel, said yesterday that the effort to thwart the newly formed political groups was shortsighted.
"A year ago, the same brain trust at the RNC was saying that we have to get more money in the public financing system," Mr. Smith said. "In 2008, Republicans will need this money, though. If Hillary [Clinton] runs, she will have all the money she needs and Republicans stepping in now will need help in a tough primary. So they are trying to regulate this for the short-term partisan gain."
The commission in a 4-2 advisory vote Wednesday told Americans for a Better Country (ABC), a newly formed Republican group, that funds spent to influence federal elections cannot be 100 percent soft money. The commission said that federal campaign activities must be financed at least partly by "hard money," which is raised in smaller, tightly regulated amounts.
Some say the ABC inquiry was a Trojan horse sent by the RNC, triggered by worries that liberal groups were circumventing the 2002 campaign finance reform law that bans political parties from collecting soft money but is less clear on its application to independent groups, such as ABC.
The FEC's advisory ruling is viewed as an early indication of how it will write regulations later this spring to enforce the new campaign finance law.
Political partisans offered sharply different predictions on the impact of the opinion, which technically applies only to the group that sought the ruling.
Democratic groups such as America Coming Together are continuing to raise soft money, while some Republicans are interpreting the FEC decision as halting the soft-money influx to such entities.
The RNC has heralded the FEC decision as "the end of these 527 groups."
Mr. Smith's controversial appointment in 2000 was backed by Republican Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who supported the appointee's stance at the time that contribution limits needed to be repealed. Senate Republicans even delayed an ambassador's appointment in order to force President Clinton to nominate Mr. Smith.
This week's comments against his party prompted kind words from Mr. Smith's previous detractors.
"Brad Smith has shown he is a man of principle," said Celia Wexler, research director for Common Cause, a government watchdog group that in 2000 called Mr. Smith a "disastrous nominee."
"It is pretty clear he took this issue to heart and the opinions he expressed were not partisan," she said.
Prior to the vote, the RNC sent a letter to commissioners urging them to prohibit soft-money contributions to the 527s.
At the same time, a bevy of Democratic lawmakers and special interest groups, primarily those on the left, beseeched the commission to allow the groups to continue.
Republicans have shown an ability to outstrip Democrats using almost any fund-raising mechanism, said Larry Noble, executive director of the campaign-finance-reform advocacy group Center for Responsive Politics.
"Even in this election, the Republicans are in an interesting position," Mr. Noble said. "They want to ban the 527s, but I suspect there are large Republican 527s as well."
•This article is based in part on wire service reports.

[Valin]

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



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.

Update 2
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


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

If you want on/off this Campaign Finance Reform ;ist please let me know.

If you are interested in posting some of these threads please let me know
Fame Fortune could be yours, it gets rid of those "unsightly" stains, And is guaranteed to improve your tan. Lose those unwanted pounds!