Who wins and who loses under campaign finance bill

Personally, I would rather have SCOTUS decide the constitutionality of legislation, than the president making what would appear at the surface to be a politically motivated move by vetoing something that the majority of the people seem to want.

Trust the system, it works the vast majority of the time.

Whenever you hear somebody say that CFR is there to get the money out of politics, they're lying. Do you think Terry McAuliffe supports something that gets rid of the thing he does best, fund-raise? The money will still be there, but you and I won't be able to spend it to get our opinions out over the heads of the Big Media which is why there hasn't been any criticism of this bill while it was in danger of failing.

Now that it has passed, they're all of a sudden starting to see problems with it. The stories are everywhere! Yes, even as they celebrate, they are plotting the next move, and that would be aimed at candidates who can pay for it themselves. So just keep a sharp eye on this. We're going to see money going to state parties now, because money is like water

It always finds a place to go. That will be the next target, or something very near it. This battle is not over.

Democrats are publicly saying that they realize they just shot themselves in the foot by supporting this thing. For me to believe this bill is really going to "get the money out of politics," I'd have to believe that Terry McAuliffe of the DNC is willing to give up the only thing he's good at - shaking down donors for cash.

I'd have to believe that everyone in the Senate voted his conscience, when I think only Senator Feingold can say he did. This bill is rotten and unconstitutional to the core, and we should celebrate when the Supreme Court knocks this thing down

The White House is building these coalitions with people ideologically different than they are, rather than creating a large and growing base of comprehending, understanding, energized supporters. The president admitted this bill was flawed, but hoped that could be "worked out later." Now, that sounded really familiar, because this CFR was passed after Clinton's impeachment, and the previous CFR bill was passed after Richard Nixon's resignation.

What President Bush said with the 2002 bill mirrors what President Ford said when he signed the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act. Said Ford, "Today I'm signing into law the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments of 1974. By removing whatever influence big money and special interests may have on our federal electoral process, this bill should stand as a landmark of campaign reform legislation." Sound familiar?

The Supreme Court found the same limits on the amounts that can be contributed to candidates in federal elections, and the amounts that those candidates can expend in their campaigns, unconstitutional by a 6-3 margin in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. So the '74 bill was passed because of Nixon, and yesterday's was passed because of Bill Clinton.

And neither bill will do what it purports to do - yet they passed because of the label "reform." This is not reform. There's nothing successful about either of these two bills, and yet the people who are in charge of them and behind them are running around receiving accolades as reformers.

House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt²

The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.
Thomas Jefferson³

In the free society ordained by our constitution, it is not the government, but the people--individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.
U.S. Supreme Court, Buckley v. Valeo⁴

A constitutional amendment to permit the imposition of campaign spending limits currently is being debated in the U.S. Senate. This proposed amendment addresses the core not only of the First Amendment, but of the electoral process that undergirds the entire system of U.S. government.

S.J. Res. 18, introduced by Senators Fritz Hollings (D-SC) and Arlen Specter (R-PA), would permit Congress (and states for state elections) to establish "reasonable" limits on campaign contributions and spending. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is a leading proponent of the amendment. In the House, Minority Leader Richard Gephardt and others have introduced a campaign spending limitation amendment with more detailed restrictions on the collateral effects (on free speech and debate) of the limits.

Proponents of S.J. Res. 18 and similar measures argue that the amount of money spent in campaigns has become, in itself, a corrupting factor. They also complain about the amount of time required to raise funds for campaigns, about the tone of campaign ads, and about the unfairness of rules allowing wealthy candidates to spend unlimited sums of their own money while requiring other candidates to raise funds in small amounts.⁵

Advocates of the proposed amendment argue that our government has been shaken to the core by recent political scandals. Some even argue that our political system is rotten to the core. But the centrality of free speech to political liberty is not in dispute. S.J. Res. 18, were it adopted, would represent the first time an American government claimed the power to limit, and therefore to regulate and control, political discussion.

Since the time of ancient Athens, the right of open debate has been considered an essential element of self-government. As elections expanded the reach of democratic government beyond the confines of a single city, so freedom of the press expanded the right of free speech. U.S. courts have held consistently and logically that restrictions on spending for printing, mailing, or advertising are, in fact, substantial restrictions on the ability to communicate ideas. Without free debate, elections cannot be an effective means of self-government.

Are limits to be equal for every party; for well-known incumbents as for obscure challengers?
Are persons or groups other than candidates permitted to spend money for political advertising? If so, are candidates' limits to be somehow equalized?
Are issue ads to be limited or forbidden? And who determines the difference between free speech and campaigning?
How is the government to be prevented from abusing its power to set limits that help the party or politicians in power?
Are new technologies that make mass communication less expensive to be limited because of their effects, or is money alone the problem?

In addition to the constitutional and administrative questions, there are substantial policy objections to campaign spending limits. The best evidence indicates that increased campaign spending produces increased voter turnout⁶ and more competitive elections,⁷while spending limits are usually designed in ways that benefit incumbents.⁸

A QUESTION OF SELF-GOVERNMENT

The most fundamental problem with having the government regulate elections is that elections are intended to control the government. Among the most vigorously debated of the provisions of the Constitution was the power of Congress to make exceptions to the general principle of state control of congressional elections.9 Alexander Hamilton justified this power as necessary only for self-defense: to ensure that states did not attempt to control Congress by controlling elections. But if the federal government is now to restrict participation in elections, who is to restrain the government?

Sponsors of the spending limit amendment declare citizens unable to distinguish among competing political claims without government intervention. Only if government controls the political debate, they argue, can citizens be expected to make rational choices. This theory abandons even the pretense of self-government. If it is necessary for the government to control the debates that control the government, citizens are no longer in charge. If the situation is as dire as advocates of the amendment claim, then even their amendment cannot save our political system.

Fortunately, the history of debates over free speech in the United States indicates that there is an alternative to limiting speech as a solution to political problems: a more vigorous pursuit of the truth. Thomas Jefferson won America's first great battle over free speech, declaring in the end that "error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.¹⁰ The answer to special interests and other problems in our political process is not the shortcut of a government takeover, but by an even more vigorous public debate about how we ought to be governed.

Contrary to Representative Gephardt's claim, free speech and democracy are not in conflict. In fact, you cannot have one without the other, and limiting free speech inevitably restricts democracy.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

The link between free speech and democracy appears at the very beginning of self-government. In ancient Athens, the principle of free speech "extended even to the criticism of the basic principles of Athenian democracy itself."¹¹Plato was perhaps the first of many utopian reformers to complain about abuses of this liberty, criticizing Athens in The Republic that the "city is full of liberty and free speech and everyone in it is allowed to do what he likes...each man in it could plan his own life as he pleases."¹²

At the time of the founding of the United States, free speech was identified most often particularly with freedom of the press, with Jefferson as the most eloquent advocate of the diffusion of written knowledge as essential to human advancement, and particularly to the democratic governance of an extended republic. But freedom of the press was only one species of the generic liberty of speech. The Founding Fathers also recognized a "right of free correspondence,"¹³and the right to meet and discuss issues in public. Thus, the rights of speech, press, assembly, and petition were protected in the same amendment to the Constitution in the same way.

Among the "Intolerable Acts" passed by the English Parliament in reaction to the Boston Tea Party (and which finally sparked the American revolution) was a restriction on town meetings in Boston. This restriction on assembly was recognized clearly as an effort to suppress political criticism of the government. Colonists reacted by forming covert "committees of correspondence" to communicate among the colonies in opposition to measures of the English government.

There was no conception of an "institutional press" apart from ongoing political debates. Newspapers and pamphlets were partisan political tools, and thus the Founders' declarations about the absolute necessity of freedom of the press can and should be extended to today's debates over paid political advertising. Nor were there any illusions about abuses of press freedoms, "I deplore...the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed and the malignity, the vulgarity, and the mendacious spirit of those who write for them," complained Jefferson in one letter, going on to observe that these evils were "produced by the violence and malignity of party spirit."¹⁴

Commercial boycotts were used successfully by the colonists to pressure Parliament indirectly through London merchants. Commercial embargoes were used, in turn, to punish the incipient rebellion in Boston. Thus, the Founders would find curious indeed the claim that the use of financial resources to secure political goals was not among the liberties they fought and died to secure.

Once independence had been obtained, the constitution setting up a unified national government would not have been ratified without the promise of a Bill of Rights, including a provision protecting freedom of speech and of the press.¹⁵

The Alien and Sedition Acts

Controversy over alleged abuses of free speech rights was not long in coming to the new nation. In 1798, the "XYZ correspondence" purported to reveal a French-backed plot against the American government. Although the letters subsequently were shown to be fraudulent, Congress passed several laws targeted at anti-Federalist editors, many of whom were of French extraction.¹⁶The Alien Acts allowed the deportation of suspect resident aliens. The Sedition Act made it a crime to publish criticism of the government, Congress, or the President, including efforts to oppose or defeat laws.

It is difficult to overstate the alarm produced by congressional attempts to regulate speech. The laws were seen as such a threat to democracy that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison encouraged the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia to pass resolutions not only opposing the laws but blocking their enforcement within those states, and arguing that the laws were unconstitutional. (Excerpts of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions are in the Appendix). Virginia legislators noted that their state, among others, would not have ratified the Constitution without the guarantees included in the First Amendment. Jefferson claimed that the First Amendment was so absolute as to prohibit even federal laws against libel.¹⁷

In part because the Supreme Court had not yet enunciated the power of constitutional judicial review, Jefferson and Madison advanced claims of state powers to "nullify" these unconstitutional acts. Perhaps recognizing the nullification doctrine would (as it later almost did) spell the end of the Union, Jefferson and Madison waged a political campaign against the acts, forming the first national political party, and eventually taking over the government in the election of 1800.

The controversy over the Alien and Sedition Acts has several lessons for current campaign controversies. The first, as the most recent, proposals to restrict speech are linked in part to allegations of foreign influence. The fact that the most salacious of the allegations in 1798 later proved false should caution against hasty action today. It is noteworthy that the authors of the Sedition Act, realizing the danger of the power they were wielding, scheduled it to expire prior to the change in administrations in 1800.

But most worth noting was the response of Jefferson and Madison, authors of the nation's founding documents. Rather than passing new laws, much less amending the Constitution, their solution was to argue their case to the people and by so doing correct abuses by winning election. Complaints about special interest influence today might be met best with the same response: not by efforts to restrict legitimate if narrow interests, but by vigorous appeals to broader and higher interests; not by attempts to suppress debate, but by enlarging it.

Money and Politics

Controversies over money and politics also began early in American history. Disputes within George Washington's Cabinet between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton revolved largely around the government's relation to moneyed interests. Andrew Jackson's 1828 campaign against Eastern money was successful largely because he was able to amass a campaign treasury sufficiently large to wage a successful grassroots campaign.

Financial controversies revolving around corporate power in the 1870s and 1890s were met with new laws against corruption and laws providing for disclosure of campaign contributions (in 1910). But more fundamentally, those controversies were resolved through broad political reform movements. Allegations of excessive union power resulted in new laws on union organization and politicking in the 1940s.

Direct constitutional confrontations over laws limiting or restricting spending by political campaigns, corporations, and unions were generally avoided prior to the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo¹⁸decision through narrow construction or enforcement of laws (for example, exempting activities protected by the First Amendment from spending limits) and court decisions focused exclusively on the facts of particular cases.¹⁹

What Did Buckley Say?

The 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) were very substantially different from earlier campaign regulations, which had focused largely on disclosure and, to a lesser extent, on specific prohibited acts (such as corporate and union donations to campaigns). The FECA limited political contributions and spending for House, Senate, and presidential campaigns. It also imposed very low limits ($1,000 annually) on campaign-related spending by anyone other than candidates or political parties. The 1974 law required comprehensive reporting and disclosure by campaigns and political groups and created the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to monitor and enforce the law. The same statute also provided public funding for presidential campaigns, with partial public funding for presidential primary contests.

The sweep and reach of the FECA was such that the Supreme Court could not avoid or finesse a ruling on the law's constitutionality. Although the Buckley opinion is often described as complex or disjointed, its theory is actually simple and easily understandable: the Supreme Court declared that Congress may limit political contributions, but that it may not limit political spending. This distinction was based on the court's reasoning that the only legitimate reason for Congress to curb First Amendment rights in political campaigns is to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. Thus, large contributions, which hold the potential for corruption, could be prohibited, but independent spending, spending on one's own behalf, or even aggregate spending by campaigns could not be limited.

Curiously, proponents of S.J. Res. 18 claim not to "understand" (Senator Daschle) or "fathom" (Senator Hollings) the distinction between individual contributions on the one hand and aggregate spending on the other.

RATIONALE FOR THE AMENDMENT

Sponsors of the Campaign Finance Reform Amendment make four basic arguments for it:

Excessive campaign spending is corrupting;
The amount of time required to raise funds is excessive;
The tone of campaigns, especially TV ads, is overly negative; and,
Permitting wealthy candidates or independent groups to spend freely in campaigns is unfair.

Little or no evidence of actual corruption related to congressional campaign spending is offered. Instead, amendment sponsors argue that spending levels are somehow corrosive and undermine public confidence in the electoral process. These general charges, however, do not provide an adequate argument for limiting campaign debates any more than complaints about negativity or unfairness by the news media justify restricting press freedoms.

Neither do complaints about the demands on politicians' time provide a valid reason for limiting their opponents' political spending. Congress could easily (and constitutionally) reduce the time required to raise a given amount of funds simply by increasing contribution limits.

Complaints about the tone of campaign discourse, particularly about negative or attack ads, bear little logical relation to spending limits. There is no reason to assume that limiting spending by campaigns would change the tone of debate. In fact, many campaign professionals argue that limiting spending would tend to encourage ads designed to rivet the public's attention. In any case, arguing for spending limits based on objections to the substance of ads reveals that S.J. Res. 18 is, in fact, a direct attack on the First Amendment: some candidates should be required to shut up because others do not like what they say or how they say it.

Equity arguments provide one of the strongest rationales for spending limits. The problem is that allowing the government to handicap some candidates in order to help others requires a balancing act that could never be genuinely fair. Incumbents, for example, begin campaigns with far higher name identification and with other advantages over challengers: should challengers then enjoy higher limits, for fairness sake, and how much higher? The Supreme Court explicitly rejected the fairness argument as a justification for spending limits in Buckley, recognizing that such limits inevitably would restrain groups who legitimately wished to communicate through advertising.

Personal Complaints

The degree to which sponsors of S.J. Res. 18 argue for a constitutional amendment based on their personal situations is remarkable. The introductory statements on the amendment by both the lead sponsors substantially involved complaints about their own campaign experiences.²⁰Although it is understandable that politicians will view campaigns through their own experiences, political campaigns in a democracy are not personal contests between politicians in which citizens are spectators. Campaigns are the exercise of self government. Regulating campaigns based on the convenience or equity claims of candidates overturns the principle that it is the people who govern. The highly personal cases made on behalf of spending limits lend credence to the suspicion that incumbents will set limits to benefit themselves and to hobble challengers.

FLAWS IN THE AMENDMENT

The philosophical arguments against spending limits are buttressed by the practical problems in imposing them. A fundamental flaw in S.J. Res. 18 is its admission that limits might well be unreasonable. The amendment would limit Congress to "reasonable" limits, but there is no indication of what "reasonable" might mean. The House version of the campaign finance amendment contains several additional limiting phrases and conditions (assuring a full discussion of all issues), but these fail to provide much additional clarity. Testifying in favor of the House version of the amendment, Minority Leader Gephardt refused to provide any further explanation of these conditions, saying it would be up to the courts to determine what they mean.²¹ Proposing to correct an allegedly flawed Supreme Court decision with a constitutional amendment that leaves broad leeway for court interpretation could prove pointless. Spending limits clearly would put Congress in the position of doling out speech. Senator Hollings, for example, asserts that, even though he outspent his opponent in 1992,

my opponent's direct expenditures were supplemented by hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures by independent organizations and by the State and local Republican Party. When you total up spending from all sources, my challenger and I spent roughly the same amount in 1992.²²

Hollings clearly suggests that it is his intention to count spending by independent organizations under the limits that would be established under his amendment. But why should one candidate be handicapped or advantaged (if limits are to be increased to offset "negative" independent expenditures) due to the actions of citizens participating in the electoral process?

Soft Money and Issue Advocacy

One oddity in the campaign finance amendment is that it apparently would do nothing about the fastest-growing, and perhaps most controversial, categories of political spending: soft money and issue advocacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that political parties and other groups have the absolute right under the First Amendment to issue related ads so long as they do not "expressly advocate" (that is, use terms such as "vote for," "support," or "oppose") the election or defeat of a candidate. Against this background, the court would not interpret an amendment that permits limits on campaign spending as allowing Congress to limit spending on issue advertising such as that done by labor unions, political parties, and others in 1996.

Like price controls, spending limits are sure to be frustrated by citizens' creative attempts to get around them. The widespread use of politically potent, but First Amendment-protected issue advertising provides an obvious way around spending limits. In order to be effective, Congress would have to expand the reach and scope of limits on a continuing basis, providing a clear recipe for the suppression of free speech.

CONCLUSION

Advocates of a constitutional amendment for campaign spending limits deserve credit for addressing the question of campaign regulation head-on. Their proposal is not, however, a limited attempt to reverse a single flawed Supreme Court decision. Since its Buckley ruling in 1976, the Supreme Court has continually expanded its definition of the range of political activities protected by the First Amendment and consistently has restricted the government's ability to regulate political discourse. The court's rulings are fully consistent with the Founding Fathers' insistence on the protection of free speech, without which the Constitution itself would not have been ratified.

The campaign spending problem, as Senator Specter pointed out in quoting Justice Stephen Breyer, is one of "core 1st Amendment activity."²³Unraveling the First Amendment clearly would begin unraveling the Constitution. Indeed, it is clear that free speech is one of the "inalienable" liberties established by the Declaration of Independence, which no government might legitimately take away. The argument of a limited aim and the promise of reasonable application is no justification for abridging this fundamental liberty.

Democracy is often a noisy, tumultuous process. But attempting to suppress debate inevitably creates more problems than it solves. Indeed, there is no evidence that spending limits would actually produce a fairer, more issue-oriented electoral process. Limits have no logical relation to the tone of campaigns. Limiting campaign spending in order to control objectionable ads makes no more sense than limiting spending on gasoline to control reckless driving. And the animus against certain kinds of ads reveals that the real complaint is not about the volume but about the content of campaign debate.

The problem with a campaign finance amendment is that it seeks an easy way--but one that leads to perdition. If American voters no longer can "throw the bums out" in response to scandals, then laws regulating campaigns and restricting speech are unlikely to help. Such laws have ever been the bane of outsiders and reformers, and are likely to make things only worse. If the American political system has become corrupt, then citizens need to purge it. The corrupt government, by definition, cannot do so itself. Self-styled reformers who urge Congress to pass laws designed to achieve this political objective are attempting a shortcut around the democratic process. Regulating democracy necessarily weakens it.

Criticizing the amendment proposal is not denying that there are significant problems in our political process. But Madison and Jefferson showed us, in the nation's first crisis over free speech and political debate, that the solution to such problems is not in attempting to alter or subvert the Constitution. Reformers should not devote their energies to efforts to change the Constitution but rather to changing, enlarging, and focusing public opinion. If public opinion is not sound, no constitutional amendment will save it. Conversely, if opinion is sound and engaged, constitutional alterations will not be necessary.

I'll add on to why the NRA is opposed. Not only are 501c(4)'s hit, "Educational groups"(AGS, McStain's buddy McKelvey) win big. These big corporations also are usually MAJOR funders of gun grabbers. The Tides Foundation, Joyce Foundation, and the like win big, why the NRA gets hit bad. HCI gets hit too, but not AGS, which is a bigger threat anyway.

501(c)4's are considered at least under Michigan Law, Corporations. I know that because I'm treasurer of one of these groups. This thing hits very close to home, and now puts my vote up for grabs. Bush hasn't lost my vote, but he isn't garanteed it. I won't be campaigning for him either, nor will give him any help. I'll be spending my time helping good CONSERVATIVE republicans like Mike Rogers, who voted AGAINST CFR. He's worthy of my help.

So Bush sucks here, along with his allies Carl Lenin and Debbie Stabusall.

The system is set up with three bites at the apple. If congress passes a bill that is obviously unconstitutional the President is bound by oath to veto it. If he fails the Court is the last resort.

A bill that is obviously unconstitutional should never get to the Court. The Court should decide matters where there is a clear question. Like line item veto. While one could argue that there was a question about spending before 1976, that isn't the case now. The Court already ruled on this. There was another case just two years ago, but I can't find it in my notes so I won't go out on a limb and quote it from memory, but the Court reaffirmed Buckley 6/3 again then.

Trying to change the meaning of words by legislation to circumvent the Constitution is not upholding the system. Sitting back and saying let the Court handle the heavy lifting is not the system. Doing that is how we end up with Justices legislating from the bench.

I don't care one bit who this helps or hurts politically. I just care about the Constitutional system. This bill and the way it is being handled makes a mockery of the system.

Whose hard money, and how does it become hard?

Luis ain't touching that with a ten foot pole.

The "Niguel" in Laguna Niguel is named after the Nigueli Indians - an obscure tribe I must admit.

Is post #33 for publication?

(Sec. 203) Bans disbursements for electioneering communications from union or certain corporate funds, except certain tax-exempt corporations making electioneering communications: (1) paid for exclusively with funds provided directly by individuals who are citizens or permanent resident aliens; and (2) which are not targeted electioneering communications.

(Dan: - MCRGO and the NRA are considered corporations. Corporate money is banned on the state level)

The specifics I explained more here

kayak, we could all have drawn a worse hand in life than being free Americans in 2002. George W. Bush is dedicated to our security and liberty and future - you can see it in his eyes. Everything he does is strategically directed to enhancing our security and prosperity. He doesn't have time to pretend he's Samuel Adams or James Madison. People who view the events of September 11th - and see that horror only as a pretext for an assault by the Feds on the rights and liberties of Americans - are seriously warped. Go load boxes of canned foods onto trucks at the food shelf, get some perspective on life. We're damn lucky and blessed. Hey, our problem in America, despite the agitation over the years here on FR, is not that our government is hell bent to oppress every free individual in America; it's that our government doesn't know we exist! They don't want to control us, that would mean acknowledging us! LOL I've never understood the angst here, because our Federal government couldn't stage an oppressive campaign against the citizenry if they tried ... the "State" is not nearly that competent. Stalin would be running around the Oval Office ... "What? There are no three day weekends during a bloody purge!!!! Get me my secret police chief ... the phones are down? Where are you going, it's 4:30?"

Apparently, this is a veto proof bill

No it is not. 60 Sinators, including that jerk Carl Lenin backed it. 66 are needed.

Thanks for the nomination! };^D)

(Sec. 203) Bans disbursements for electioneering communications from union or certain corporate funds, except certain tax-exempt corporations making electioneering communications: (1) paid for exclusively with funds provided directly by individuals who are citizens or permanent resident aliens; and (2) which are not targeted electioneering communications.

Say what? It might be time for a visit again to the definitions page. . .This looks as if it deals with the crackdown on corporations and unions, yes? Thanks for posting!

Dan, anyone who bases their political vote exclusively on 2nd Amendment voting records or platforms doesn't need an 11th hour NRA blitz to enlighten them. They know. If they don't know, they don't care enough to change their vote with any last minute information anyway. It's either an all-encompassing issue for a voter, or it isn't. .

The game is turnout. The Democrats work harder to get their loyal groups to the polling place. The ministers arrange the buses, the unions contract for time off, the elderly and infirm get "help" with absentee ballots. Democrat voters are located in close proximity, they're easy to organize on election day. They're voting themselves financial benefit, that's an easy sell.

Try recruiting some of our pals here on FR on election day by knocking uninvited at their front door. I'd recommend voting absentee in advance, and Dan I will be the first to say some really sincere and respectful things about you in your FR memorium. People that want to be left alone are difficult to organize.

I agree. The PURE informed 2a vote(most freepers) do not need the blitz. However we need to counter the unions(same people) with these gun blitzes and SUSTAIN them in the last 3 weeks especially.

They need to be in a pissed off mood on their way to the polls, and the reason has to be guns(or another conservative issue in our favor).

It's also not AS big of deal with PRESIDENTIAL races, but the races DOWN THE TICKET. Hell, I don't know all the candidate's 2a stands offhand in these races(it's nearly impossible), and I treasure a PAC.

10-20% of the membership does exactly what the NRA tells them election time. They need that ENDORSEMENT, especially when the candidates are not that well known.

Thanks so much for the 10,000 lake lecture on what's been going on in California. You are a font of...
Something.

Bile?

Your post #62 is a MASTERPIECE. I would call it a good hard dose of reality that flies in the face of those who continually look at the glass as half empty.

Great Job

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA! Best thing I've read all day!

Dan, your state absolutely confounds me. I understand the Conyers voters ... but what in the world does any blue collar man or woman working in the auto industry or at one of the countless supporting manufacturing and service firms have in common with the Democrat Party anymore? Nothing.

The Democrats are for high taxes, gay and lesbian exaltation, bans on hunting, fishing and gun ownership, abortion on demand, abolition of the internal combustion engine and all related smokestack manufacturing, affirmative action and regulation of everything from tobacco to snowmobiles. The Democrats do not vote blue collar stalwarts' interests in ANY way any more. What are they thinking?

How do we get to those people? It's frustrating, because in Minnesota, the Iron Range folks are the ones who put people like Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton into office, yet neither of those guys could go into a Hibbing bar and mingle with the locals in any comfortable way. Mark Dayton would be frozen in fear. To affect his earthy roots (as a professor of political economics (socialist)) Wellstone leaves all the "g"s off the end of his verbs when he's talking on behalf of the "workin" man. It's so contrived ... "I'm sayin' to all the workin' folks out here ... all who are seein' this great wealth and all this money goin' to the same old folks, yet you're bustin' your backs for your family, for your kids, earnin' your pay every day and still somehow you missed the boat, you are just scrapin' by". Hey Paul, how about eatin' me? That citizenry is culturally conservative, but they're too stupid to vote that way. You feel like grabbing them (if they weren't all 6'3" Croatians and Latvians with fists the size of canned hams) and saying "Hey, you don't HAVE to vote like Dad and Grampa and all the sometimes sober family always did, ok? Vote for you and your kids. The Dems hate you and disrespect everything you hold dear. Hey, listen to me! It's a secret ballot, nobody will know."

That's an incredibly mismatched bloc, and any GOP candidate that breaks through the collective blue collar brain damage is golden. The GOP should be winning all the manufacturing states, no excuse. Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, even Illinois ... the blue collar guys and women are reviled and despised by the gay, green, feminist, racist, gun grabbing Democrat elites and the midwest dairy farmers are getting ripped off by the New England patricians. How do the communists and cross dressing faculty from Harvard and the other Boston universities negate all those big burly Irish goofballs (like me) and their Italian counterparts who should NEVER vote for someone like Barney Frank or Ted Kennedy or Gerry Stubbs or Marty Meehan? Dan, I just think there are people who go through life and stuff just happens to them without review. What's up with that? I understand the mindset ... the Patriots won the big one, and the Bruins and Celtics are rocking and Red Sox are ready and that's more than enough for any man or woman to digest. "Yeah, I voted for the fag and the old drunk again, hey how about Billy G with two more goals last night?" Massachussetts is not big on female politicians, that's pretty apparent over the years. So they prefer their reps as sugar daddies for gay escorts and pedophiles hooking up with 17 year old male House Pages. It's a lunch bucket city, so I've heard.

That's not just Boston, I don't want to pick on them. It's a complete rational disconnection, smart and hard dealing people will drive 15 miles across town to save $60 on a dishwasher or $35 on a silverware set. Yet, they give up $12,000 a year in taxes with no clue, scrutiny, diligence or inquiry whatsoever. None. No idea how it's spent, who is spending it, what services they are getting back and why they are needed. They know every feature of the leaf blower they just saved a cool $15 by driving 25 minutes to another Wal Mart. The names of their county, state or U.S. Reps Hey, did you see the new leaf blower? It's hypnotized people, and the controlling amulet is the insidious withholding system. I know too many people like this, too many people whose eyes roll back in their skull when they complain about some fiscal shortcoming and I point out the thousands of dollars they pay to the county that they have no idea of destination or use. You dare bring up, or challenge, a political statement at a social gathering? You are more popular if you fart repeatedly in mixed company than if you initiate political chit chat. Nobody can back up their political philosophy, they know they should, and everyone agrees that it's just better left unexplored - and why can't Tom just talk about the joy of 7 year olds running around a big field aimlessly and occasionally getting close enough to maybe see someone actually kick a soccer ball? Stuff we talk about?

yes, Atomic. Unfortunately, some even here on FR don't understand the meaning of "Congress shall pass NO LAW...."

Hopefully SCOTUS will rescue the idiots from themselves.

Hopefully SCOTUS will rescue the idiots from themselves

YES HOPEFULLY i sure as he$$ dont like taking that chance ! how bout you ?