loosecannon
Senior Member
- May 7, 2007
- 4,888
- 269
- 48
Nice brigade of strawmen.I thought we already had campaign finance deform.
How does continued failure exist as evidence that the goobers in the District of Criminals should have even more power?
So you like corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of $, anonymously? Here I thought we all wanted more transparency, more for the people governance. Guess I was wrong. Any conservatives support reforming the way campaigns are funded? Or do they like politicians who cater to special intrest? This should be a bi-partisan issue.
We were already told that the last campaign deform bill was going to solve all the problems of "dirty money" in campaigns, and probably get rid of unsightly panty lines to boot....Yet here we are a couple of years later, with all the same tired old complaints.
And somehow or another, campaign finance Nirvana is just one more reform away...again.
The last campaign reform bill was struck down by the USSC. McCain Feingold:
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCainFeingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted March 27, 2002, H.R. 2356) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on January 1, 2003.
As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:
* The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
* The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds. (Note: The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission does not change this provision of BCRA. It also fails to overturn the ban on political donations by foreign corporations and the prohibition on any involvement by foreign nationals in decisions regarding political spending by U.S. subsidiaries.)
Although the legislation is known as "McCain-Feingold", the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356introduced by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), is the version that became law. Shays-Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380.....
In June 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., that BCRA's limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. Some election law experts believe the new exception will render BCRA's "electioneering communication" provisions meaningless, while others believe the new exception is quite narrow. The Federal Election Commission's interpretation and application of the new exception during the 2008 election cycle will determine the true scope and impact of the Court's decision.
In June 2008, the section of the act known as the "millionaire's amendment" was overturned by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Federal Election Commission [7]. This provision had attempted to "equalize" campaigns by providing that the legal limit on contributions would increase for a candidate who was substantially outspent by an opposing candidate using personal wealth. During 2008 one of the cosponsors of the legislation, Senator John McCain of Arizona, touted this piece of legislation and others that he sponsored in his bid for the presidency.[2] Senator McCain consistently voiced concern over campaign practices and their funding. "'Questions of honor are raised as much by appearances as by reality in politics, and because they incite public distrust, they need to be addressed no less directly than we would address evidence of expressly illegal corruption,' McCain wrote in his 2002 memoir Worth the Fighting For. 'By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public's suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.'" [3]
In March 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, regarding whether or not a heavily political documentary (about Hillary Clinton) could be considered a political ad.[4] In January 2010, the Supreme Court struck sections of McCain-Feingold down which limited activity of corporations, saying, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. Specifically, Citizens struck down campaign financing laws related to corporations and unions; law previously banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of electioneering communications paid for by corporations in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general election. The ruling did not, as commonly thought, change the amount of money corporations and unions can contribute to campaigns. The minority said the court was making a mistake treating the voices of corporations as similar to those of people.[5] President Barack Obama expressed his concern over the Supreme Court's decision during his State of the Union speech, delivered January 27, saying, "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems." [6] President Obama also called the decision, "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. [7]