|
|
|
Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- |
Posted on 04/05/2004 11:48:31 AM PDT by Mr. Mildew
THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING
After funding regime change in other parts of the world, billionaire George Soros, cash cow of the “campaign finance reform” legislation in the United States, has set his sights on skirting that law to turn our country into his globalist vision of Utopia.
by James O. E. Norell
If there were an illustration accompanying the word “hypocrisy” in the dictionary, it would be an engraving of globalist billionaire George Soros.
Soros, among the richest men in the world, backed campaign finance reform with huge cash donations to a wide variety of Washington “reform” special-interest groups to accomplish what his funding conduit called an effort “to reduce the corrupting influence of very large donors” and to ban pre-election “issue advocacy” ads by groups like NRA.
Now, arch-reformer Soros is pouring perhaps as much as $30 million of his own money into leftwing “progressive” organizations he believes are uniquely inoculated against the restrictions of the very law Soros bought and paid for—restrictions like the ban on broadcast political advertising.
Regulating Free Speech
When the U.S. Senate debated the so-called campaign finance reform bill on March 19, 2001, U.S. Sen. Susan M. Collins, R-Maine, said:
“The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 (BCRA) … First and foremost, the bill closes the most glaring loophole in our campaign finance laws by banning the unlimited, unregulated contributions known as ‘soft money.’ Second, the bill regulates and limits the campaign advertisements masquerading as issue ads that corporations and labor organizations often run in the weeks leading up to an election. And third, the bill prohibits foreign nationals from contributing soft money in connection with federal, state or local elections.”
During the floor debate, the “reformers’” vision of what the evil term “soft money” meant was voiced by U.S. Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., as:
“Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means; money that creates the appearance that a wealthy few have a disproportionate say over public policy …” (Emphasis added.)
In terms of the public policy of so-called campaign finance reform, Dodd’s words couldn’t have been truer. Without Soros spending $18 million, according to the Washington Post, to fund an army of the slickest “public interest” D.C. lobbyists and P.R. spinmeisters, it is doubtful that McCain-Feingold would have become law. Soros was the hand in the sock-puppet.
Having financed the lobbying effort to enact BCRA, Soros moved on to fund massive legal “research” as part of the opposition to NRA’s U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the broadcast ban, and the umbrella suit bearing the name of U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnel, which challenged most sections of BCRA on First Amendment grounds.
Hijacking American Politics
Having done that, Soros moved on to what might have been his real purpose.
The Washington Post, in a fawning Nov. 11, 2003, profile interview with Soros, served up his political manifesto, erasing illusions about the “soft money reform”—at least the notion of the average little guy versus the average billionaire.
“George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.
“‘It is the central focus of my life,’ Soros said.”
In fact, Soros said he would spend all the billions of dollars in his personal fortune if he could be guaranteed that President Bush would be cast out of the White House.
Does that statement meet Chris Dodd’s cry of concern: “Money that threatens to drown out the voice of the average voter of average means”—a phrase that surely describes NRA members, who, pooling individual worth, could not match the fortune at Soros’ disposal?
Soros believes he is the apostle of something he calls “the open society” under which national sovereignty is subjugated to global “democracy”—a vision that includes the borderless spread of international gun control, which Soros has promoted with an outpouring of funds from his Open Society Institute (OSI), which he also used to fund campaign finance lobbying for the last half of the 1990s.
The Post puff piece on Soros was sparked by news that the one-world billionaire had given $5 million—the largest “soft money” contribution in American history—to an organization called MoveOn.org. It was the first of many such massive Soros contributions to this and other similar “stealth” groups set up after enactment of McCain-Feingold.
But Soros, as an unspeakably wealthy donor, is not alone. He is an enabler, a networker, a fundraiser sparking huge contributions from other leftist billionaires—personal friends and business associates like Peter B. Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp. (insurance), and Hollywood playboy/mogul Stephen Bing, all of whom have ponied up millions to fund MoveOn.org, along with other shadowy, under-the-radar political organizations.
A Historical Perspective
Soros—a self-styled citizen of the world who has indeed spent billions meddling in the internal affairs of many nations—has been credited with wrecking national currencies and toppling governments.
Soros has compared President Bush to the Nazis and told a European audience he was seeking “regime change” in the U.S. “America, under Bush, is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is,” Soros told the Post.
How does the infusion of billionaire dollars to MoveOn.org bring about a “regime change” in America?
What Soros and his “progressive” billionaire partners are getting from MoveOn.org in return for their breathtaking “soft money” largess is a massive attack-ad campaign, which they believe is immune from BCRA—a campaign designed to move radical voters to “take back America.” That means “take” the power of the national government—the White House and Congress.
In targeting President Bush, The MoveOn.org Voter Fund Web site brags, “We will produce convincing anti-Bush TV spots and get them on the air in targeted states. We will buy enough airtime to effectively deliver our message to swing voters in those states. We will sustain our advertising presence continually throughout the pre-primary and primary periods. (Emphasis added.)
Do as I Say, Not as I Do
That boast is a precise description of the activity that was outlawed by the Soros-backed BCRA, a.k.a. McCain-Feingold, named after the law’s prime U.S. Senate proponents.
That oppressive law, which NRA opposed in Congress and fought all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, bans any broadcast “issue advocacy” advertising paid for by independent organizations like NRA or by unions if the ads “refer to” a candidate for federal office and can be seen or heard by people who are eligible to vote for that candidate. The ban takes effect 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.
So how is it that MoveOn.org is doing what law-abiding non-profit grassroots organizations—like the NRA—cannot do? And how is it that even the “appearance of corruption” that soft money represented doesn’t apply to Soros.
Soros and his fellow billionaire travelers are poster boys for what they once claimed were the evils of “soft money.” But in Soros’ grand vision of himself, “the corrupting influence of very large donors” (his OSI’s words) doesn’t apply to him or his pure motives. He told National Public Radio that his massive contributions to affect the November 2004 elections were morally above question:
“I am not motivated by self-interest but by what I believe to be the public interest. So when the Republican National Committee attacks me and distorts my motives … you see, I'm different from their contributors.”
What he is saying is that he is above the law, above even the question of appearance of corruption, because, in his heart, he knows he’s right.
While the long debate over campaign finance was rife with the use of the pejorative “loophole,” Soros and the handful of “progressive” political activists he funds believe they have found total immunity from the laws Soros paid so heavily to have applied to everyone else.
Hiding Behind the Tax Code
The loophole they have sought comes not in the campaign finance law, BCRA, but in the Federal Tax Code, which covers certain entities known as “527s.”
Since it is now against the law for national parties to receive “soft money,” which they used in pre-McCain-Feingold days for get-out-the-vote drives and issue advertising, the theory is that those functions, along with the unlimited funds from big donors like Soros, can be shifted to “527s.”
In essence, the claim is that “527s” have immunity from the reporting requirements and all other strictures demanded by the FEC under BCRA, because they were created under the U.S. tax code. It’s like a drunk driver saying the traffic laws don’t apply to him because he’s in a vehicle covered by anti-pollution laws.
Hiding under the “527” category are some very inbred Democratic Party operatives—all on the radical left. Their organizations have become stealth political parties—in the case of Soros’ benefaction, stealth ultra-left, anti-gun political parties
And unlike the Democratic or Republican parties, nobody elects those who control “527” functions, and many of these organizations aided by Soros operate in near total secrecy.
In the Shadows
Some, like the Media Fund, run by former Clinton White House Fundraiser-In-Chief Harold Ickes, reportedly will be launching attack ads against President Bush, and have been referred to by The Washington Post “as a new shadow Democratic Party.”
The editorial focused on an entity created in Texas called the Sustainable World Corp., incorporated on Dec. 10, 2003, which a few days later gave $3.1 million to a “527” called Joint Victory Campaign 2004, with half going to the Ickes’ Media Fund. The Post noted that the only public information on the Sustainable World Corp. is a Houston post office box, and that its registered agent refused to identify the principals of his client.
Another “527” listed on the IRS Web site called “Campaign for Progressive Future” (CPF) has expenditures tied to the Million Mom March. It has an address in the tiny town of Washington, Va. Among its wealthy donors are George Soros and Soros Fund Management, which provided $500,000. An equal sum came from the Irene Diamond Fund, which has long funded anti-gun research and helped bankroll the NAACP anti-gun lawsuit. CPF’s director, Steve Cobble, has a solid radical-left pedigree. He cut his political teeth in George McGovern’s ill-fated 1972 presidential campaign and has been a speechwriter for Jesse Jackson.
In his PBS NOW interview, Soros claimed, “I am contributing to independent organizations that are by law forbidden to coordinate their activities with political parties or candidates.” (Emphasis added.) That is what he sees as the only stricture on his obscene soft money largess.
But a search on the Democratic National Committee Web site for the words “MoveOn.org” produces a few paragraphs that raise instant questions for Soros and illegal coordination of these groups.
One item says, “The DNC is also conducting a major petition drive in partnership with MoveOn.org. More than 310,000 Americans have signed the petition to protect our courts—with more than 172,000 of those signatures coming in the past 36 hours. The petition calls on Bush and the Republicans to stop nominating judges that are out of step with mainstream Americans and praising the Democrats for standing up for their rights.” The DNC Web site links the petition.
The other announcement involved what the DNC called “a massive public mobilization” in which “The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org …” to fight President Bush’s tax cuts.
More Seedy Partnerships
But this is just the beginning of obvious questions as to coordination.
A Dec. 9, 2003, In These Times magazine cover story described the work of a small network of radical “527s” including the MoveOn.org Voter Fund described as having been “created after McCain-Feingold to circumvent the ban on soft money. Named for the section of the tax code that regulates them, these progressive 527s—nearly all funded and organized by traditional Democratic allies such as labor, environmental and reproductive rights groups—can raise huge sums of unregulated money for voter education and registration, so long as they do not advocate for a specific candidate.”
As for their source of “huge sums of unregulated money,” the article says, “So far the 527s haven't had much of a problem finding cash, thanks in no small part to billionaire financier George Soros, who has donated $12 million so far to 527s and has pledged millions more.”
In reality, Soros—who spent at least $18 million to fund the McCain-Feingold lobbying effort—has shut down the traditional functions of political parties. And Soros’ money, in Christopher Dodd’s own words, now “has drowned out the voice of the average voter of average means.”
Campaign finance reforms have allowed a small handful of left-wing, anti-gun radicals to hijack the key machinery of a whole segment American politics.
But there is more. It’s important to remember Soros’ words—“I am contributing to independent organizations that are by law forbidden to coordinate their activities with political parties or candidates”—when looking at the cast of characters Soros has empowered.
The key stealth “527” organization funded by Soros is something called America Coming Together (ACT), to which Soros reportedly provided $10 million in seed money.
ACT’s function was described in an Aug. 8, 2003, press release thusly: “A new political action committee, America Coming Together (ACT), will undertake a substantial effort in 17 key states to defeat President George W. Bush and elect progressive officials at every level in 2004, and to engage and mobilize millions of voters on key public issues.” (Emphasis added.)
And what about coordination?
Sugar-daddy Soros’ America Coming Together is headed by Steve Rosenthal, formerly the political director of the AFL-CIO, whose title is now chief executive officer of ACT, and by Ellen R. Malcolm, founder of EMILY’s List. Ms. Malcolm’s title is president, though the ACT Web site says she will keep her post at EMILY’s List.
Political Incest
In addition the ACT Web site, www.americacomingtogether.com, lists:
Minyon Moore, “formerly chief operations officer for the Democratic National Committee;” Gina Glantz, the former national campaign manager for the Bill Bradley for President campaign; Cecile Richards, “president of America Votes, a coalition of 17 national organizations working together to educate and mobilize voters in the 2004 elections …”; Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU); and Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. Pope is listed as ACT’s treasurer.
That’s what ACT says about these folks. Yet there’s more.
A press release on the Democratic National Committee Web site announced Minyon Moore’s August 2002 departure as the DNC’s chief operating officer to work for Dewey Square Group, a Democratic political consultancy.
“Moore served as White House political director under President Clinton, as political director of the DNC … Moore will continue to serve as a senior advisor to the DNC and to Chairman (Terry) McAuliff,” and quotes the chairman, “I couldn’t be more thrilled than to nominate her to serve as an at-large DNC member as well as a member of the DNC’s executive committee.” The release quotes Moore: “I look forward to maintaining a close relationship with the DNC in my new position at Dewy Square … .”
As for Glantz, she has since left ACT to work as a “senior adviser” in the Dean for President campaign. Her goodbye press release said she had been “assistant to the president for Strategic Issues and Political Action at the Service Employees Union.
Cecile Richards is the activist daughter of Ann Richards, the former governor of Texas who lost her job to George W. Bush. She is a former organizer for the Service Employees Union and is president of America Votes, which just so happens to be another 527 organization getting soft money. Before coming to America Votes, Ms. Richards was deputy chief of staff to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
At Richards’ America Votes Web site, www.Americavotes.org, the group claims to be a “non-partisan political organization,” which includes among its “coalition,”—you guessed it—America Coming Together. Also among the 17 America Votes affiliates are the Service Employees Union, the Sierra Club and EMILY’s List.
The address for America Votes is 888 16th St. N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20006. Incidentally, that is the same address as America Coming Together, which is located one door down at suite 450.
And it is also the address of yet another 527 “stealth PAC”—The Partnership for America’s Families, which, according to The Center for Public Integrity, received funding from the Dewey Square Group, Moore’s employer and DNC consultant.
There is a phrase for this. Political incest.
Look Who’s Next Door
In case there is any doubt about the possibility of coordination with a party, 888 16th Street is the same address as the Democratic National Committee’s temporary headquarters. How on earth can anybody pretend there is no coordination?
Author Christopher Hayes’ description in the In These Times article, “Door by Door—Progressives hit the streets in massive voter outreach,” bears repeating:
“These field operations will be supervised, coordinated and executed by these same dozen so-called 527s, such as Americans Coming Together and America Votes, created after McCain-Feingold to circumvent the ban on soft money.
“Issue advocacy and voter contact in an election year is nothing new, but never before have progressive groups come together to coordinate their efforts, pool their resources and collectively execute the program. Although the organizational structure binding the half-dozen largest 527s is to a certain extent ad hoc, most of the groups are staffed by the same pool of veteran political organizers and headquartered in the same office building at 888 16th St.—across the street from the AFL-CIO in Washington, D.C. (Emphasis added.)
“Alongside groups that will manage and execute the field operations are a few 527s, like America Votes, dedicated solely to coordinating these efforts.
“The energy surrounding field efforts is palpable, and many veteran party activists and organizers who were critical of the ways in which the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act would end up handcuffing the Democrats now say that birth of the 527s has reinvigorated the party by moving money and manpower outside the Democratic National Committee and closer to activists.”
Politics for Billionaires Only
So there it is.
In the pre-McCain-Feingold political world, parties—with officials elected by members, with platforms debated in open forums, with all sorts of disclosure through existing campaign laws—were the center of power. Now, under the “reform,” power is in the hands of people who know no party discipline, hold no responsibility to voters and are indeed beholden for their very existence to a few “very large donors.”
Back when the supporters of campaign finance reform were making their case for banning “soft money” and for banning non-profit corporations like NRA and unions from spending funds on pre-election issue advocacy ads, they said it was the appearance of corruption they sought to remedy. There was never any evidence of actual corruption.
Sen. Russ Feingold summed it up this way,
“We are going to talk about corruption, but, more importantly, what is much more obvious and much more relevant is the appearance of corruption. It is what it does to our government and our system when people think there may be corruption even if it may not exist. (Emphasis added.)
Creating Real Corruption
But while appearance of corruption was so feared, real corruption does now exist, and its name is “527.”
Sen. Herb Kohl, one of the sanctimonious supporters of McCain-Feingold, gave the best Alice in Wonderland description of the fraud Congress was about to foist on the American electorate:
“Let me be clear, I do not believe that our system is corrupt or that elected officials are corrupted by campaign contributions. However, I agree that we must combat the perception of corruption.
“Whether the presence of unlimited political contributions is corrupting or whether it just creates the appearance of corruption, the damage is done.”
Open your eyes, senator. The appearance may well now be the reality, and you voted to create it.
Soros: Funding Gun Control
If anyone doubts that George Soros would pay to destroy the Second Amendment as he has paid to destroy the First Amendment, a look at his spending on gun control tells a chilling tale.
Soros largely funded the Million Mom March, and bankrolled malicious lawsuits against the American firearms industry, including the NAACP suit that claimed law-abiding manufacturers and dealers were responsible for the acts of armed criminals in New York who obtained their firearms through criminal commerce.
Soros also specifically targets NRA members by pumping megabucks into the Campaign for a Progressive Future, which is touted as an “organization that supports candidates opposed by the National Rifle Association.”
And Soros, to implement his global solution for the future of American gun owners, even imported to our shores the woman singularly responsible for the confiscatory long-gun ban in Australia.
When Congress shut down the bogus Clinton-era efforts of the Federal Centers for Disease Control to treat firearms ownership as a “public health” issue, Soros’ OSI paid for the research to be taken up elsewhere.
The list of Soros’ anti-gun activities and funding goes on and on, but an October 1999 headline on the anti-gun rights Web site of www.jointogether.org said it best: “Soros Bankrolls Gun Control Movement.”
|
|
|
Or mail checks to: Or you can use: |
|
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- |
Stealth?
It's not like they're trying to hide it.
Just my speculation, but I would bet the RNC has more on Soros than Kerry. And they have a ton on Kerry.
I think this would be a winning issue to pose before the voters. "Who's given $20 million dollars to help the campaign of John Kerry? Who is George Soros? What does he expect in return?"
I would think that bringing Soros to the attention of the independent voter would bring a tremendous turn-off toward Kerry. I don't think Americans would take well to having some rich mystery man trying to buy the election (and for the Dems! Ha! Take that, Party of Class Warfare).
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.
