Noxious reform

townhall.com ^ | 2/16/02 | David Limbaugh

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Unfortunately it'll pass the Senate, thanks to the RINOs who are more concerned about re-election than they are at protecting the Constitution.

Then Bush will sign it, thank the Dems for cooperating and bipartisanship, and the liberal media with their new huge powers will help the Rats defeat Bush in 2004.

[RichardW]

This is all a lot of hogwash. The chicken littles of conservatism are as nuts as the left wing looney left. To listen to these screwballs we are going to be arresting and jailing everyone who happens to speak their minds within 60 days of an election. The purpose of the bill is to rid the election process of the sewer money that buys elections. The average person is locked out of the election process except for the single vote cast on election day and as we know that can be offset by the massive vote fraud existing today. Until and unless the dirty money is taken out of elections only the special interests will have any real input into the governance of this country.

[supercat]

To listen to these screwballs we are going to be arresting and jailing everyone who happens to speak their minds within 60 days of an election. The purpose of the bill is to rid the election process of the sewer money that buys elections.

No, the purpose is to ensure that politicians can rape conservatives in the 60 days prior to an election without anyone being able to buy space in the media to let the public know what they actually did. The media can use the law an an excuse when they refuse to sell time or space.

Until and unless the dirty money is taken out of elections only the special interests will have any real input into the governance of this country.

Nearly all "dirty money" in politics stems from two things: (1) a willingness (if not eagerness) for politicians to "give away" taxpayers' money if they think it will help their career, and (2) the eagerness of many politicians to have the government cripple businesses that don't provide them suitable support.

The problem is not that people and businesses can give money to politicians, but is rather that politicians use unconstitutional means of pressuring others to give them money and/or votes. When the real problem is a government that has taken too much power upon itself already, giving that same government more power does not seem like a wise solution.

[supercat]

. So, for example, if a group of concerned citizens wants to inform voters that a candidate is flagrantly nonchalant about the Second Amendment, it will only be allowed to do so prior to the final 60 days of the general election.

Right. Of course, politicians will be free to wait off on passing the bad stuff until they're in the "safe harbor" window, so nobody would be able to mention their conduct during the legally-allowed time since the politicians' shameful conduct wouldn't have happened YET.

On the other hand, given the NRA's silence surrounding the passage of the Lautenberg Act (the most eggregiously unconstitutional bunch of junk to date, which passed less than two months before the 1996 elections!) I'm not sure all that much would really be changed...

[ServesURight]

The chicken littles of conservatism are as nuts as the left wing looney left.

Sorry, but conservatives have a right to be nuts.

This "campaign-finance reform" bill is all about keeping left-wing incumbents in power while squashing the voices of grass-roots conservative and groups.

The problem that no one is addressing is the campaign limits themselves. Candidates should be able to raise as much money as they feel like it so as long as there's full disclosure and none of the money is from foreign sources.

[RichardW]

"This "campaign-finance reform" bill is all about keeping left-wing incumbents in power while squashing the voices of grass-roots conservative and groups."

Actually the WSJ in April said just the opposite. Seems that Bush raised $100 million in "hard money" far more than the democrats. They seemed it would actually benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats. They didn't believe it was constitutional. I think the Supremes will come down somewhere in the middle.

[RichardW]

"This "campaign-finance reform" bill is all about keeping left-wing incumbents in power while squashing the voices of grass-roots conservative and groups."

I believe you will find that the "media" is much less effective than believed. The American voter (the ones who actually vote) know all they need to know well in advance of the 60 day cutoff period. The trash advertisements that now come are really a period of disinformation. That doesn't serve democracy very well.

[jwalsh07]

Urge McConnell To Filibuster this Commie Crap

phone: 202-224-2541

Urge President Bush to Veto the same commie crap

phone: 202-456-1414

[backhoe]

Here's a Note to Activists:

Want to do something? Go here:

Ignorance Making You Ill? Cure It!

for links, tools, & instructions about how to contact a pile of different people, and how to send a link to this story right here ( or anywhere else ) to a "mass email" using Outlook Express.

[jwalsh07]

No, its people like you who don't serve democracy very well. Who decides whats trash and whats truth, you or the government?

You are so misguided, it would be funny if it weren't so sad. The words "Congress shall make no law..." are clear, its just that people like you don't give a crap.

Uh, Mr Jefferson, Richard W. says you're a wing nut because you think the idea of submitting political speech to the government for pre approval is the road toward totalitarianism.

Mr Jefferson: #$$%^%#@$%^^

[Lazamataz]

This is all a lot of hogwash. The chicken littles of conservatism

Yeah. It's all a lot of hogwash. The Bill of Rights is hogwash. Who cares.

[Whilom]

Truth in packaging requires that this legislation be called what it is -- the Incumbents' Protection Act. Everyone who likes the composition of the House and Senate as it stands now will be happy with the effort. Just one problem: Past campaign finance "reforms" have proved ineffective; this one would likely suffer the same fate. It will, however, be a hammer for liberal media to bludgeon conservatives while keeping conservatives muzzled and unable to reply (through print and electronic media ads). Look for SCOTUS to throw it out 5-4.

[RichardW]

"Uh, Mr Jefferson, Richard W. says you're a wing nut because you think the idea of submitting political speech to the government for pre approval is the road toward totalitarianism."

This is a mischaracterization of what I said and you know it. The idea is get the sewer money out of politics so that in the fog of campaigning the truth isn't a casualty and the politicians are not beholden to the special interests. Besides, what do you have to fear anyway? Everyone, or nearly everyone, here seems to believe that the Supremes will knock this legislation down anyway. Let's test it and find out; shall we?

The idea that you will not be free to express your political views is absurd on its face.

[RichardW]

"Truth in packaging requires that this legislation be called what it is -- the Incumbents' Protection Act."

Looks to me like we already have that. In any given election year about 95% of the House of Representatives are guaranteed reelection. Am I wrong?

[jwalsh07]

This is a mischaracterization of what I said and you know it.

Its what the bill says Richard, did you read it? Ads will have to be submitted to the government. Comprende?

As for what I'm worried about, its people like you who have no idea what they are talking about supporting crap that they haven't read. Thats what worries me Richard.

[jwalsh07]

The idea that you will not be free to express your political views is absurd on its face.

Read the bill Richard and then read the first amendment. You're clueless.

[supercat]

I believe you will find that the "media" is much less effective than believed. The American voter (the ones who actually vote) know all they need to know well in advance of the 60 day cutoff period. The trash advertisements that now come are really a period of disinformation. That doesn't serve democracy very well.

How can the American voter know all they need to know before the 60-day cutoff period if politicians can wait until after that period starts before raping conservatives?

How about combining that 60-day cutoff period with a 90-day cutoff period for politicians passing any new legislation to ensure that there's a 30-day window during which any new legislation can be made known to the public?

[RichardW]

"Its what the bill says Richard, did you read it? Ads will have to be submitted to the government. Comprende?"
Here is what it will do. This is to ensure that the law is complied with. We are a "nation of laws", are we not? You got a problem with that? "The ability of unions, corporations and nonprofits to fund broadcast "issue ads" would be restricted if the ads referred to a federal candidate and ran within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. They would have to be paid for with hard money through a political action committee."

[RichardW]

"How can the American voter know all they need to know before the 60-day cutoff period if politicians can wait until after that period starts before raping conservatives?"

I don't buy this argument. The liberals are screaming that they will be screwed. Since both are saying essentially the same thing it looks like a good piece of legislation. This notion that the "liberal media" controls the public mood is a fiction. Dan Rather and his ilk are known for their bias and the American public knows it. Anything they are for I am against and vice-versa.

What I do know is that sewer money is influencing elections well beyond the voter base of the congressional districts. Only the well-heeled and primarily one-issue groups are heard. Additionally, the advertisements are designed to obscure the origin of the backers and manipulate the facts regarding the candidates true views. The average voter is left holding the bag. Everyone knows this down deep. Money = election victory.