Who wins and who loses under campaign finance bill

CNN.com ^ | March 20, 2002 | CNN Staff

[Luis Gonzalez]

National parties: Opponents argue that the national parties will be the big losers because they will be deprived of unregulated "soft money" contributions, which amounted to $500 million in the 2000 presidential election. Candidates would have to look elsewhere for support, probably reducing the party's influence. Supporters say the law would force the parties to reach out to less affluent donors and expand grass-roots activities, eventually making the parties stronger.

[Goldsters]

"So if I buy an ad to criticise Lieberman or Dodd within 60 days of an election by wiritng a company check, I go to jail. "

If that is true, you are right that it is violating our freedom of speech. However, if it is true that you may buy that ad as long as you do it with hard $ and disclose the source of that $, then most of the outcry is baseless.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

THE CONSTITUTION
LOSES and THE CITIZENS of THIS GREAT COUNTRY

[ArneFufkin]

Howlin, I was in Los Angeles two weeks ago and I noted that most every citizen moved around without surveilance, and most did so via automobile. Businesses still accepted United States currency. The LA Times is still printed in English and the road signs have yet not been converted to metric. And, yes, I'm a little alarmed like many others here ... there does seem to be a huge influx of Chinese in that area ... but still ....

[Torie]

That really was a very well written post. LOL. Let me know when you get a chance how one distinguishes between referencing a candidate and bashing, per the distinction in the savings clause of the bill for the 60 day window if SCOTUS bounces the referencing prohibition. Is it kind of a know when you see it kind of thing, like pornography?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Join the discussion, we're just trying to cut through the rhetoric and find the truth.

Huge banners with little substance add little to the discourse.

[SUSSA]

That's where you are wrong, you can buy all the ads that you wished denouncing "the anti- American socialists on the left running for (fill in the blank). Nothing stops you from doing that, as long as you are using hard money, and are willing to disclose the source of the ad.

You are exactly right. That's the problem. "Hard" money is money contributed directly to a candidate. If you run an ad like what you describe, under this bill, it will be considered a contribution to a candidate. That means the ad falls under the contribution limits for hard money. If your ad costs more than those limits, both you and the candidate broke the law.

If you run an ad prior to the 60 day cut off, it will be considered a direct contribution or "Hard" money if you had contact with the candidate. If your ad costs more than the limit you and the candidate are committing a crime.

So if LULAC sends Pat Buchanan and whoever is running against him a questionnaire, and they answer, then LULAC runs ads saying that Pat is a racist because he is against flooding the country with criminal aliens, the ad would be counted as a hard money contribution to Pat's opponent. LULAC and Pat's opponent would be subject to all the limits, disclosure, etc as if they gave that money directly to the opponent. If the ad costs more than the limit the candidate and LULAC have broken the law.

This is why everyone from the ACLU to the GOA is against this bill. It is a direct attack on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court already ruled that the Congress cannot limit spending so now they are going to call spending contributions. It's like Bill Clinton saying oral sex isn't sex.

[Teacher317]

I know that, because at least 5 thousand aggrieved posters to this forum have proclaimed that their entire right to free speech has been completely and brutally seized from them by this campaign reform legislation.

So having your rights infringed upon 'just a little' or losing only part of your rights is acceptable? Will you post a similar rant on every 2nd Amendment thread that comes along, since it is still legal to own a .22, one-shot, breech-loaded, single-use, disposable, porcelain handgun in some parts of Connecticut? Are you one of those brave souls who will stand up against tyrrany only after the authorities declare the entire Constitution null-and-void in a public ceremony? (a little hint: you won't be allowed to stand up by then... health hazard donchyaknow... but at least you intended to!)

If you won't stand up and oppose every incremental phase of the destruction of our Liberty, that's fine, there are plenty of Americans in that boat with you... but why on earth would you malign others for doing so? Do you not oppose that incrementalism at all?

[jwalsh07]

Did you read David Mason, the current head of the FEC's, analysis of this reform? He says it is, as you pointed out, unenforceable from beginning to end.

Whats the name of that stable that Herc had to clean all of that crap out of?

[PRND21]

The Supreme Court already ruled that the Congress cannot limit spending so now they are going to call spending contributions.

What's the difference between spending and contributing? There is none.

[ArneFufkin]

There's a subtle difference between vigilence and mental illness.

[Luis Gonzalez]

What are your thoughts on this issue, and did you read post #62?

[deport]

Great reply.... you need to copy and paste it on a few of the other threads.....

[Luis Gonzalez]

So then, if SCOTUS strikes this item (having lost line-item veto, Bush couldn't do it) the bill actually looks pretty good, doesn't it?.

[jwalsh07]

If that is true,

Oh, its true alright.

you are right that it is violating our freedom of speech.

Right you are.

However, if it is true that you may buy that ad as long as you do it with hard $ and disclose the source of that $, then most of the outcry is baseless.

They are slick, this is the Catch 22. If I use hard money, money that comes under the aegis of federal election law, then I am limited to the amount of money I can spend. So how do I run the commercial?

[lavaroise]

The Senate's is worse I fear, considering it was shaped by Dashle's cohorts including McLame who has even admited to the motive: influence of money, and not his crookedness. You can look it up yourself, this whole thing has been refered and denounced at FR time and again. If you doubt it, go check it out.

[Luis Gonzalez]

BTW, I forgot to bow and mumble "I am not worthy"....I am still laughing....

"Look, these CFR laws are not going to take effect until the 2004 elections anyway, and by then we'll all be obliterated by the lethal Mexican horde. We'll be voting for politicians at mandatory bullfights, with punch cards just like we use now to select the MLB All Star team. Cagey, devilishly clever Mexicans! The dirty little secret is that most illegal immigrants are here to conduct unfettered embryonic stem cell research enabled by YOU GUESSED IT - George W. Bush. OK, that's another betrayal to add to the list."

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Uncle Bill]

BTTT

Statement by the President

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 20, 2002
Statement by the President

Like many Republicans and Democrats in the Congress, I support common-sense reforms to end abuses in our campaign finance system. The reforms passed today, while flawed in some areas, still improve the current system overall, and I will sign them into law.

The legislation makes some important progress on the timeliness of disclosure, individual contribution limits, and banning soft money from corporations and labor unions, but it does present some legitimate constitutional questions. I continue to believe the best reform is full and timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

###

Return to this article at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020320-21.html

---

The George W. Bush Lie

ABC News's This Week on January 23, 2000:

GEORGE F. WILL: I want to see if you agree with those who say it would be bad for the First Amendment? I know you're not a lawyer, you say that with some pride, but do you think a president, and we've got a lot of non-lawyer presidents, has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment, he thinks are unconstitutional?

GOV. BUSH: I do.

WILL: In which case, would you veto the McCain-Feingold bill, or the Shays-Meehan bill?

BUSH: That's an interesting question. I — I — yes I would.
Source

LIAR - George W. Bush

[Teacher317]

I was in Los Angeles two weeks ago and I noted that most every citizen moved around without surveilance, and most did so via automobile. Businesses still accepted United States currency. The LA Times is still printed in English and the road signs have yet not been converted to metric. And, yes, I'm a little alarmed like many others here ... there does seem to be a huge influx of Chinese in that area ... but still ....

When the Nazis took over France (or any other, less-hyperbolic, national conquest) the majority of the daily hub-bub was left unfettered. The French still had their own currency. They still could visit their friends, work at the jobs of their own choosing, and select their own restaurants. They still used the French language. They were even able to assemble illegal resistance movements! Your requirements to qualify for police state merit badge are rather tough. What exactly does it take for you to say, "They've gone too far?"

More importantly, what would prompt you to say, "This is a very clear example of the erosion of our Liberty" or maybe even, "This would be another small step towards losing our Constitutional Republic"?

[Torie]

Augean.

[eaglebeak]

It was no problem--just that I didn't want you to misunderstand. I probably wasn't clear enough. (sigh)