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.

[jwalsh07]

You have a good understanding of the first. Hope springs eternal.

[PRND21]

Ignore PRND21. He's posed this question on numerous threads, and been answered numerous times.

Link, please.
Start with "Hillary might run ads calling Republicans names" or "something about a slave and a plantation manor".

I posted a simple question and was "pung" to this thread.

It would appear you are violating my free speech.
I've yet to see how CFR does.

Quit smearing and answer the question.

[PRND21]

HOWEVER, the local Kansas City Star, which is biased as any paper can be, as well as the local radio and television commentators may comment and run non-stop editorials for their favorite democrat candidate.

Can the competing newspapers do the same?
Also, can the RNC and DNC and 3NC air ads in that time period?

[NittanyLion]

You have a good understanding of the first. Hope springs eternal.

Thank you. Good find on the NRA letter, BTW.

[BluesDuke]

So, now you show me in the first amendment how and when Congree can limit the speech of "the people" and exempt "the press"

As also point out - apparently, it needs to be re-stated, again and again - that the First Amendment does not say Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech of some. Aside from which, the only real campaign finance reform can ever come upon us if and when the serious, profound, and irrevocable shrinking of government begins in earnest, at last. So long as government remains metastasised enough that it wields power of any kind over our economy and other doings, it will attract those seeking to influence it directly and with the appropriate pressure and power - including and especially the power of money. Shrink the government, remove its power to determine or even dictate our economic lives, and "campaign finance reform" goes the way of the stagecoach.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Are you saying that the media will specifically say "Vote for (specific candidate name inserted here)"?

[Howlin]

This is an OUTSTANDING post; a Freeper classic, if I might!

You know, Arne, you don't post as much as "some" of us, namely me, but when you do, it is TOP OF THE CHARTS! I greatly appreciate your thoughts and wit!

[NittanyLion]

Are you saying that the media will specifically say "Vote for (specific candidate name inserted here)"?

Would you disagree if I say they essentially do that already? What do you think Dan Rather is doing when he makes 35 references per week to the "ultra-right wing" and "radical right", but none to their counterparts on the left? Or when he refuses to talk about Chandra Levy for two months, but happily talks about Newt Gingrich's affair?

[Luis Gonzalez]

But this bill does not impede the "radical right" from buying ads saying the exact same thing, does it?

[KC_Conspirator]

Well, I from my understanding that you might be able to argue a certain idea (abortion, guns, etc.) under a shell company outside a registered party, bit the minute you mention a name such as "Congressman X voted against Y" you are breaking the law. If that does not sound like a abridgement of free speech I don't know what does.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"He'll make 100 references to the "ultra-right GOP" every night, and people like myself won't be able to do a damn thing to get our side out."

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.

[PRND21]

Well, I from my understanding that you might be able to argue a certain idea (abortion, guns, etc.) under a shell company outside a registered party, bit the minute you mention a name such as "Congressman X voted against Y" you are breaking the law.

Can you link me to the document from where that info came?

[Brad’s Gramma]

Wow, for years to come we're gonna be able to gritch and moan cuz our free speech is gone? Here? On FR?

[Howlin]

What a novel concept, eh?

[Recovering_Democrat]

In other words....."Luis, I don't know, but I read it on FR."

:) You're cute, if not swift. g'nite.

[Brad’s Gramma]

I am soooooooooooooooo confused.

[Howlin]

I'd like to THANK EVERYBODY on this thread for actually DISCUSSING this thing like GROWN UPS.

You've done well!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Oh! But I AM swift!

Good night to you as well.

[mystery-ak]

WOW.....a great post, and a voice of reason.

[Teacher317]

Funny, I would have thought that you would have lost trust in the people who actually wrote the bill as well.

You have to initially HAVE that trust to LOSE it. =^)