Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance reform. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Dishonesty Thy Name Is George Will
Campaign Finance Reform is the undoing of John McCain in they eyes of (or at least the column by) George Will this morning. Millions of conservative voters have realized that McCain wants to surpress their free speech, and having intellectually weighed the pros and cons of McCain-Feingold, they have rejected him due to his undemocratic ways.
In 2004, Wisconsin Right to Life, a small citizens group thatposed no conceivable threat of "corruption" to anyone or anything, wanted to run an ad urging Wisconsin's senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, not to participate in Senate filibusters against the president's judicial nominations. But Feingold was running for reelection, and WRTL's proposed ad was declared an "electioneering communication" (any radio or TV ad that "refers to" a candidate for federal office). And the McCain-Feingold blackout period banned such ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election -- when ads matter most because people are paying attention to politics.
The WRTL case could have been an occasion for McCain to say: This is not what McCain-Feingold was designed to do -- it was intended to stop the (as he sees it) "corruption" of elected officials soliciting large "soft money" contributions (not for particular candidates, but for party-building and other activities). Or he could at least have kept quiet. Instead, he went out of his way to stick his thumb in the eye of critics: With his brief to the Supreme Court, he underscored the fact that suppressing inconvenient (to politicians) speech is exactly what he and his McCain-Feingold allies -- Fred Thompson was an important one -- had in mind.
This was exactly what they had in mind. For all the voters would know, this group may have not been funded by pro-lifers. The reporting requirements are much more lax. You could be the HMO industry, the oil companies, supporters of Charlie Manson for that matter, and donate $2,300 a person to your favorite political candidate, or you can call yourself "Americans for Puppies and Ice Cream Sundaes", funnel money not to the candidate of your choice, but to an "issue group" that is "concerned" about Russ Feingold's hatred of puppies and attempt to boost his opponent's campaign through subterfuge.
This is exactly what McCain-Feingold was trying to prevent. Sadly, the five right wingers on the Supreme Court agree with George Will and we are going to be subjected to more speech by those who have the deepest pockets.
George Will has consistently opposed campaign finance reform under the theory that the more money you have, the more speech you are entitled to do during campaign season. Why should you have to limit yourself to the same speech somebody making $70,000 a year makes? They can give $2,300 to a candidate and it means something to their finances. Why can't rich people give meaningfully too?
If I ever win the lottery, I hereby vow to start a group called "Americans For Clean Rivers". We will spend millions on electing candidates who promise to ban bow ties and obnoxious columnists.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Missing The Point Entirely
David Broder, "the dean" of D.C. journalists, has a column today where he once again takes shots at liberals and totally misses the point about campaign finance reform. It must be Sunday.
If you believe most of the newspaper editorials and the outraged complaints from self-styled reform groups last week, the Supreme Court opened a huge "loophole" in campaign finance law that will enable corporations and unions to pollute the political process with their ads.
It is astonishing to me that a decision grounded in the First Amendment right to address basic public policy questions should be objectionable to people who consider themselves liberal.
No Broder. That is not the objection and you know it. Basically, third party groups can't run ads mentioning a candidate by name 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general election. There is a solid reason for this. It is a way to use a subterfuge to get around campaign finance limits for a campaign.
Let's say Senator X is for removing tax breaks to oil companies. Challenger Y loves it, and the campaign contributions he receives from the oil company executives. There is a problem. They are maxed out in what they can give.
A lightbulb goes off in their heads and 5 days before the election, a massive ad buy sweeps across the state.
Senator X, why do you oppose saving kitties? Please call Senator X and tell him to support legislation to protect little furry balls of adorability.
(This ad paid for by Citizens for Patriotism, Mom, & Apple Pie)
In reality, this "issue" group, with the banal sounding name is trying to not influence the kitty protection issue, but to assist the campaign of Challenger Y by running a negative ad against the incumbent. They already gave their $2,000 and now they are trying to give more. This is why these advocacy group ads were banned.
It is not about mean liberals trying to stop free speech. Broder knows this. Instead of speaking truth to power, he is being their tool.
This is what puts you at the head of the class? These objections aren't shocking to anybody who is being honest.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Newtonian Logic Confuses Me
I get emails. There was a Google ad I saw for Ann Coulter once, and signed up to read her columns. Figuring that this would be good for blog posts occasionally when she said something incredibly stupid was a good bet.
It just wasn't Coulter of course. Conservative book club memberships, hit pieces on democrats from Robert Novak, insanely offensive repeat spam about how all muslims are evil followed. So too does an email "newsletter" from Newt Gingrich. Today's installment is about how limiting campaign contributions is bad because Michael Bloomberg might run for President as a third party candidate.
The other news this week is that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg changed his party affiliation from Republican to Independent as the first move toward what many people think will be a run for President.
I think Bloomberg has done a terrific job as mayor, and people of New York who've twice picked him to lead their city seem to agree. He has every right to decide to run for President, and I hope he does. He will make a fantastic addition to the race.
But the possible Bloomberg candidacy highlights yet another of the anti-democratic, pro-Washington power structure aspects of the McCain-Feingold so-called campaign finance law.
Michael Bloomberg is a billionaire with plenty of money to spend on campaigning. When he ran for re-election as mayor, he reportedly spent $112 a vote. If Bloomberg enters a three-way presidential race as an Independent and spends just half of what he did per vote for his two campaigns for mayor, the amount would be enormous. In this model, if Bloomberg targeted the same number of votes as Clinton did in 1992 to win 43% of the vote and the presidency, Bloomberg would spend upwards of $1 billion dollars. That's BILLION with a B.
Billion with a B eh? Newt believes that to get away from Washington values, we need to free up Washington lobbyists so they can pour massive amounts of money to candidates who will beholden to them. Nothing says sixth district of Georgia values quite like $500,000 bundled from a trade group.
Newt thought getting blow jobs from an office worker wasn't technically sleeping with another woman so his ideas are creative all across the board. Newt is promoting his new book in Texas, CaliforniaIowa, and New Hampshire. Can you say September announcement? I think you can.
Mrs Gingrich would make a wonderful first lady. She could even help President Gingrich on policy issues. She does have government experience. She worked in Gingrich's office during his second marriage.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)
