Ney Ready to Act on 527 Regulation

Roll Call ^ | September 1, 2004 | John Bresnahan and Amy Keller

[Prime Choice]

House Administration Chairman Bob Ney (R-Ohio) is planning to hold hearings on 527 groups in the next few weeks, with the goal of introducing bipartisan legislation soon that would rein in funding for the controversial and largely unregulated organizations.

Since when was MORE regulation the solution to ANYTHING? And what's worse, we have a Republican at the helm of this movement.

If you ask me, the First Amendment should be the exclusive guide on political speech in any and every election. The McCain-Feingold CFR is nothing but an unconstitutional abomination. Period.

[Robert A Cook PE]

First thing to do is to demand all donations are clearly accounted for.

Then, MAKE THE DARN THINGS TAXABLE!

(Why should these donors get to move tens of millions of "taxable" income to democrat "clubs for rich liberals" - ALL of which can be spent IN THE MEDIA, when regular corporations must pay for all their expenses and overhead, including 38% (? - check me) on all income?

I very, very suspicious of ANYTHIGN the democrats are jumping on the bandwagon about ...

Think HILLARY in 2008, and then consider WHY the democrats WANT NO REPORTING on politics EXCEPT from their mainstream media!

[boxerblues]

the next few weeks!! this is nothing more than changing the rules of the game because they are taking a beating from the SBV's

[Blood of Tyrants]

What a delusioned dumbass to think that the cure to a bad law is another bad law.

[WHBates]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[ServesURight]

It's OK, he's a Republican. They're on our side, remember? ;-)

[No-Compromise Conservative]

Well said! The best thing Congress can do is repeal this monstrosity and let people give money to whichever candidate they feel like it, as long as it isn't from foreign sources and that there's full disclosure over a certain amount, say $100,000.

[KarlInOhio]

If you ask me, the First Amendment should be the exclusive guide on political speech in any and every election. The McCain-Feingold CFR is nothing but an unconstitutional abomination. Period.

You are free to express any opinions issued to you by the Federal Bureau of Political Expression. Anyone expressing unapproved opinions will be imprisoned.

[randog]

McCain has also vowed to push legislation that cracks down on 527s through the Senate, but has made no specific proposal so far.

McCain knew his bill had massive flaws but just wanted to have a major piece of legislation pushed through with his name on it. It's an old manufacturing trick--send it out broken to make the shipping date and fix it later when if comes back for warranty repair.

[WHBates]

Being a Republican doesn't make him any less delusional or a dumbass. Remember we are a big tent party now and while we're all bozos on this bus some of us are bigger bozos than others. He may be a republican but he's probably a career politician and that is a dangerous thing.

[Prost1]

If the Democrats had a credible candidate (not a communist/socialist or deviant huckster), I would not be supporting the Republicans.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

McCain/Feingold is unconstitutional. Though I don't like Soros, he has a right to spend his money as he sees fit, provided he is a U.S. Citizen and subject to our laws...

But, the dems haven't had a credible candidate since JF Kennedy and he would be a republican today. Before Kennedy, Jefferson I think...

[T. Jefferson]

Forget this crap, first the Republicans should re-nominate Estrada for a vote and force the dems to filibuster or vote. Keep em all there till the election if necessary.

[justshutupandtakeit]

MF is not unconstitutional. Congress is specifically empowered to "...at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations [effecting the Manner of holding elections], ..."

When many here were in hysterics about the "chilling effect" of the MF law I said it would have NO significant impact. I was correct.

You also need to be aware that the Founders did not intend the first amendment to cover States. They would have never supported a system where a few rich guys could buy most of the advertising. At least none that I am aware of.

[Prost1]

"Congress is specifically empowered to "...at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations [effecting the Manner of holding elections], ..." "

This refers to the holding and conducting of elections.
The 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" comes 1st because it was the preeminent condition for a free people to remain free.
And, indeed, it was to cover the states as a condition for their admission to the Union.
Polution of interpretation does not mean clarity of reason.

[Teacher317]

with the goal of introducing bipartisan legislation soon that would rein in funding for the controversial and largely unregulated organizations.

Can't have any unregulated Free Speech going on out there... especially when there's an election afoot!
Why, political speech is exactly what the Founders decided needed the most regulating, right?!?

(This is what the GOP is becoming... and as a result, one of several reasons why I'm not so eager to vote for GWB in November.)

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Ney sees the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which he opposed, as a failure since it did nothing to prevent the flow of huge, unregulated soft-money donations to outside groups, even as it prohibited the national parties from accepting such contributions. Ney believes that Congress must move quickly to impose new limits on 527s.

So...was the goal to get the money out of politics or to shut down free speech? Sure looks like the latter to me. The money is out but the speech is in, yet they are still not happy. Tell me, what favors are the Swift Boat Veterans buying? And from whom? For that matter, what favors is Soros buying? He doesn't need any favors. All he wants to do is influence the way people vote. He has the right to do that. Certainly he is as entitled to try as Dan Rather is. He cannot coerce people. He cannot buy their vote. But he can try and persuade them.

Vote out the speech police.

[Teacher317]

They would have never supported a system where a few rich guys could buy most of the advertising. At least none that I am aware of.

WOW, you are utterly clueless. The Founders fought for and successfully implemented a system where only wealthy (read: land-owning) white males had ANY voice in government. Are you not aware of that little tidbit? Try breaking open a history book, and not just citing your fantasies about what you think they should have been advocating.

[Area51]

They would have never supported a system where a few rich guys could buy most of the advertising. At least none that I am aware of.

---

Not a History buff eh? Ben Franklin started a newspaper to push against a govenment program of some kind, the railroad system IIRC.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

LOL!