Replies

a gaping loophole in the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill

McCain-Feingold is a loophole with very little loop.

Craven Referees of Politics
by Rich Pedroncelli
May 14, 2004
In a shameful decision that will unleash a fresh torrent of unregulated donations to pollute the presidential election, the Federal Election Commission has declined to control the new "shadow party" attack groups that are evading the campaign finance law. The commission voted on Thursday not to rein in puppet Democratic operations that are already spending scores of millions in big unregulated donations from unions and fat-cat partisans.

The result sadly means that the Republicans will reply in kind with their own sky's-the-limit attack-ad spending, using the new loophole the F.E.C. has obligingly blessed. "Money, like water, will always find an outlet," the Supreme Court cautioned last December in upholding the McCain-Feingold reform law, which restricts the unbridled "soft money" abuses that festered into a national scandal in the 1990's. The commission voted 4 to 2 on Thursday to reopen the taps and flood the nation once more with politically corrupting soft money.

Partisans have been frustrated by the new campaign spending rules, which limit contributions to a size that cannot buy political influence. So they created shadow groups that brazenly claim tax exemptions for their efforts to do end runs around the law. Each group claims that it does not coordinate its efforts with any campaign, while spending millions on television ads blasting its candidate's opponent. The commission could not even muster the backbone to impose partial limits on the new big-money marauders. The only thing it did affirm was its own complicity in serving the major parties' desire to continue raising insane amounts of special interest money.
Court won't block new campaign finance law
5/13/2003
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist turned down a request from the National Rifle Association, which had asked the high court to suspend what it calls unconstitutional restrictions on political advertisements by interest groups... The Supreme Court is expected to rule eventually on whether the entire law violates the constitutional principle of free speech. Because of unexplained delays in the lower court, that ruling is now unlikely to come before this fall... The NRA says the lower court isn't moving quickly enough, and it has ads it wants to air now. The lower court ruled unconstitutional a provision of the law barring a range of interest groups, including those financed with corporate and union money, from airing political ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts the month before a primary and within two months of a general election.
Ruling exposes law's flaws
by William Hamilton
5/4/2003
Supporters of the law, named for its Senate sponsors, John McCain and Russ Feingold, claimed their goal was to create a more level playing field for all candidates. Sounds nice. But such Utopian schemes often have unintended consequences. For example, McCain-Feingold would have increased the incumbent's re-election advantage, which already relies on the taxpayer-funded postage, office equipment, paid staffers, travel expenses, public appearances and the "free" media that come automatically from being a public officeholder... Restrictions on campaign giving are undemocratic because they tend to reduce voter turnout. McCain-Feingold made voters unsure of when their giving was within the law and when it was not. And fear of prosecution inhibits the giving that, in turn, tends to encourage contributors to get out and vote. Moreover, by favoring special-interest groups over our more grassroots-oriented political parties, McCain-Feingold would have reduced the funding available for the voter-turnout efforts that are the bread and butter of our political parties.
Flaws in campaign financing argue for broad changes
5/4/2003
A three-judge panel overturned key parts of a landmark campaign-finance plan enacted by Congress in 2002. In doing so, it cleared the way for special-interest groups to resurrect unlimited political contributions -- known as "soft money" -- to national political parties, if the money isn't used to attack political opponents... Corporate contributions to political campaigns were outlawed nearly a century ago. Union contributions were banned more than a half-century ago. Large individual contributions were barred after the Watergate scandals. But politicians and interest groups carved out an exception for donations made to national political parties and their campaign committees... The federal court panel upheld the law's central provision by continuing a ban on contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals for party committee activities that target or support specific candidates. But the panel's decision allows a resumption of unlimited and unregulated donations to the parties for get-out-the-vote efforts and party building.
Court deflates campaign finance law
5/2/2003
A federal court struck down most of a ban on the use of large corporate and union contributions by political parties Friday... In another major finding, the court also ruled as an unconstitutional violation of free speech sweeping new restrictions on election-time political ads by special-interest groups and others. But it said other ad limits the law's sponsors included in the legislation as a backup were constitutional... The decision is at least a partial victory for the Republican National Committee and dozens of interest groups, who argued the law would undermine their ability to participate in politics... Those suing to strike down much of the law praised the ruling as a victory for free speech... The new law took effect Nov. 6, forcing an immediate change in party fund raising. It prohibited the national party committees from raising soft money, which included donations of any size from corporations and unions and unlimited contributions from any source... In two 2-1 votes, it ruled that political parties can raise corporate and union contributions for general party-building activities such as get-out-the-vote drives and voter registration but cannot use them for issue advertising or candidate-specific activities... The court ruled 3-0 to uphold a ban on the solicitation of soft money by federal candidates and officeholders for federal campaigns. Unclear is whether they can attend national party committee soft-money fund-raisers... Voting 2-1, the court struck down a provision barring a range of interest groups from airing issue ads mentioning federal candidates in those candidates' districts in the month before a primary election and within two months of a general election.
FEC rejects complaint on soft money
4/28/2003
In its first major enforcement decision under the nation's new campaign finance law, the Federal Election Commission has rejected a complaint accusing the Democratic and Republican parties of trying to evade a ban on corporate and union contributions... Four campaign-finance watchdog groups filed a complaint last November accusing the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Democratic National Committee of trying to skirt the ban on the raising of soft money by national parties that took effect Nov. 6... The complaint by Common Cause and others said the NRCC set up a group called The Leadership Forum while the Democratic National Committee and its chairman, Terry McAuliffe, established the Democratic State Parties Organization to get around the new law.
Sharpton declines to disclose presidential bid finances
4/18/2003
He speaks like a candidate, participates in events involving White House hopefuls and even has traveled to Iowa, but Al Sharpton is the only one of the nine Democratic candidates who hasn't filed a presidential campaign finance report. The New Yorker says he doesn't have to, arguing that he is merely testing the presidential waters and until he officially announces, he doesn't have to disclose who is financing his effort or how much he has raised... Under FEC rules, presidential hopefuls must file campaign finance reports once they spend at least $5,000 on campaign activity. They do not have to report as long as they are simply exploring whether it would be worthwhile to run. Sharpton's new campaign manager, Frank Watkins, said Friday that though it can be a bit of a "gray area..."
Edwards returns $10,000 in donations to Little Rock law firm
4/18/2003
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards reimbursed a Little Rock law firm for $10,000 in donations to his presidential campaign after a clerk said her boss had promised to reimburse her contribution. Campaign donors are not allowed to funnel donations through someone else under federal law. Otherwise, donors could exceed the legal contribution limit for individuals, recently raised to $2,000 from $1,000 per election. Law clerk Michelle D. Abu-Halmeh told The Washington Post that her boss, Little Rock attorney Tab Turner, asked people to support Edwards and assured them they would be reimbursed... Edwards raised $7.4 million in the first quarter, the most of the nine Democrats running for the presidential nomination. Four law clerks at Turner's firm each gave Edwards $2,000, according to the Post's analysis of his campaign disclosure report.
Kucinich raises $173,080 for presidential bid
by Rich Pedroncelli
4/15/2003
Democratic presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich raised $173,080 and Carol Moseley Braun collected $72,450 in the first three months of the year for their White House bids, putting them near the bottom in the nine-way race for early money... In a campaign finance report filed Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission, Kucinich listed $173,080 in contributions and $7,000 in loans from January through March. He started April with $50,397 on hand. Braun, the former senator from Illinois, also joined the presidential race in February. She reported raising $72,450 and began the month with $45,005 to spend... Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina raised about $7.4 million; Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry about $7 million; Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt $3.6 million; Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut around $3 million; former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean at least $2.6 million; and Florida Sen. Bob Graham just over $1 million.