Let's Look Into the 527's-Ummm, Yah!

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
This would be great, but perhaps hubris has not entirely taken over the major media and DNC? Links are at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/017356.php

August 24, 2004
DEGREES OF SEPARATION: RedState reports a "What liberal media? moment" for the New York Times. ("Next, the NYT will reveal that the VFW is mostly veterans.")

Call me crazy, but I don't think that the Kerry campaign is going to come out ahead when people start tracing connections to 527s. And if the folks at the Times think that they're the only ones who'll be doing the tracing, then they really haven't been paying attention.

posted at 01:08 PM by Glenn Reynolds
 
Kathianne said:
This would be great, but perhaps hubris has not entirely taken over the major media and DNC? Links are at site:

http://instapundit.com/archives/017356.php

Kerry and Bush both supported the Mccain Feingold act and are both now working with other organizations to fund their message. both should be condemned for supporting that horrible act, but not for associating with others in an effort to exercise free speech.
 
Reported by O'Reilly today:

Soros - $13 million contribution to 527s.

Jane Fonda - $13 million contribution to 527s.

Numerous other large contributors to Democrat-friendly 527s more than doubled the amounts donated by Soros and Fonda.

Now all this time Republicans have been sucking it up and accepting that these are the rules and this is the way the game is played.

Then along comes the SBVFT and their paltry $200,000 (approx) and suddenly the left sounds like a pack of cats in heat.

Must have struck a nerve - ya reckon?
 
tpahl said:
Kerry and Bush both supported the Mccain Feingold act and are both now working with other organizations to fund their message. both should be condemned for supporting that horrible act, but not for associating with others in an effort to exercise free speech.

Agreed. There is a huge amount of bitching about the alleged loss of civil liberties to the Patriot Act, yet no one can document that any such thing has actually accurred.

But the McCain-Feingold bill is a travesty. It is the single most despicable assault on the first amendment ever undertaken. If the founding fathers were here today, they would be loading their muskets.
 
If the original intent was to take money out of politics, then it may have been a somewhat noble idea. As always the devil is in the details. Looks like McCain-Feelgood had an undesired effect. Isn't politics so clean now? :piss2:
 
Merlin1047 said:
Agreed. There is a huge amount of bitching about the alleged loss of civil liberties to the Patriot Act, yet no one can document that any such thing has actually accurred.

But the McCain-Feingold bill is a travesty. It is the single most despicable assault on the first amendment ever undertaken. If the founding fathers were here today, they would be loading their muskets.

The original campaign reform following watergate was just as bad if not worse.
 
JIHADTHIS said:
If the original intent was to take money out of politics, then it may have been a somewhat noble idea.

I fail to see how that is noble. Politics is all about the spread of ideas and the debate of ideas. Money facilitates that. The less money in politicis, the less debating and spreading of ideas there is. Everyone loses except those who would rather the populace not discuss ideas.


As always the devil is in the details. Looks like McCain-Feelgood had an undesired effect. Isn't politics so clean now? :piss2:

The upsetting thing is that even though it was undesired, it certainly was not unforseen.

Travis
 
tpahl said:
The original campaign reform following watergate was just as bad if not worse.

Not in my opinion. McCain-Feingold was the first bill designed to prevent individual Americans from voicing their opinions freely. If the people who crafted this bill had any sense at all, they would have limited the amount of money any individual can spend in support of a candidate. But, as usual, the law was written so that fat cat donors could funnel money to the campaigns by one means or another.

McCain-Feingold is nothing more than window dressing, it is a shell game designed to allow those that sponsored it to crow about their desire to reform campaign finances. It does nothing of the sort. Unfortunately its ultimate effect is to restrict free speech.
 
tpahl said:
I fail to see how that is noble. Politics is all about the spread of ideas and the debate of ideas. Money facilitates that. The less money in politicis, the less debating and spreading of ideas there is. Everyone loses except those who would rather the populace not discuss ideas.
Travis

Let me try again. The system is broken. Take the billions of dollars out of political campaigns and make the candidates run on their merits. If all candidates start out on an equal footing, doesn't that help staunch the flow of special interest money? How is your third party candidate able to get equal footing when he's up against the big money machines of the 2 major parties?
 
Merlin1047 said:
Not in my opinion. McCain-Feingold was the first bill designed to prevent individual Americans from voicing their opinions freely.

The original campaign reform prevented people from donating certain amounts to certain groups as well.

If the people who crafted this bill had any sense at all, they would have limited the amount of money any individual can spend in support of a candidate. But, as usual, the law was written so that fat cat donors could funnel money to the campaigns by one means or another.

It is written in a way that anyone can give more than the restrictive amount that is allowed by funneling it through other organizations. It is not just fat cats funnelling it.

No law will be able to stop people from spending money on campaigns. People will find a way around any law that limits thier spending on expressing themselves politically. Even an outright ban on all political advertsising would not stop em from happening. laws against victimless behavior never stops the behavior.


McCain-Feingold is nothing more than window dressing, it is a shell game designed to allow those that sponsored it to crow about their desire to reform campaign finances. It does nothing of the sort. Unfortunately its ultimate effect is to restrict free speech.

I think it was more than that. I think the creators knew exactly what it did. It helps republicans and democrats stay in power at the expense of third parties. As messed up as all this stuff about the kerry and bush is, it is nothing compared to what the effect this law has on third parties.

There is a great site about that very thing at www.realcampaignreform.org


I recomend looking at this page in particular http://www.realcampaignreform.org/articles_and_essays.htm
 
JIHADTHIS said:
Let me try again. The system is broken. Take the billions of dollars out of political campaigns and make the candidates run on their merits.

That is true under the assumption that the money is currupting the politicians. I would say the opposite is true. It is the politicians currupting the money.

If all candidates start out on an equal footing, doesn't that help staunch the flow of special interest money? How is your third party candidate able to get equal footing when he's up against the big money machines of the 2 major parties?

The candidates never start out on equal footing to begin with. One candidate the majority of the time is already elected to the position and is simply running again. This candidate can then release press releases everytime they do something as the officeholder. Limiting the amount the candidates can spend means that those press releases and press interviews and all the other media that an incumbent will get is that much more valueable since the it will then become a larger porportion of the airtime that all the candidates together get. In the case of the presidential race, this of course means that Bush would get much more media than the other candidates.

Now what about candidates that are well liked by the major media? They are going to get alot more positve press. The opponenets might even get alot of negative press. If you are limiting the amount the candidates can spend, while the press can print and air unlimited amounts, you are severly hurting non media freindly candidates. In addition, why should mainstream press get all that power, but an organization dedicated to something not? All this means is that every organization out there is going to eventually create their media branch so that they can publish 'magazines' and 'newspapers' that are really just ads. I beleive the NRA has already done this in response to McCain Feingold.

So unless you stop media from printing and airing anything about races, as well as stop incumbents from doing anything while running for re-election, and prevent the media from reporting on it if they do happen to do something, you are never going to start or finish on equal ground.

Besides equal ground is something that the socialist would try to give us. Here in america we pride ourselves on playing fair, but realizing that not everything is equal.

The Libertarain party as the largest 3rd party has never called for any restritctions in speech to help get elected. It in fact realizes that only through free speech and less government restrictions on campaign finances, will they have a better shot at getting elected to more offices. They want to be free to raise money unrestricted by laws limiting how much they can accepted from individuals, and also for the ability to collect money anonymously.
 
A professor of a seminar I was 'invited' to. Smart guy...

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_08_21.shtml#1093382899

Why Bush Bashes 527s:When President Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, he made clear that he did not care all that much about legal protection for political speech. (Ditto the Supreme Court when it upheld the law.) So no one should be surprised that Bush is now calling for an end to independent political advertisements, such as those run by "527" organizations. After all, eliminating these "shadowy" groups is clearly in the President's political interest (contrary to the suggestions of Matt Yglesias and Amy Sullivan).

While there are prominent GOP-leaning 527s, the vast majority of 527 money is flowing to anti-Bush organizations. As detailed on OpenSecrets.org, most of the multi-million-dollar 527s are lined up against the President. Indeed, only one of the ten largest 527s, the Club for Growth, is anti-Kerry. Yet much of the Club's money goes to support "pro-growth" House and Senate races and to defeat Republican lawmakers who vote to raise taxes. Yglesias cites to the National Federation of Republican Women, but they're only the 49th largest 527 listed by OpenSecrets.org. Losing the benefit of NFRW and other small groups would be a small price for the GOP to pay in return for eliminating the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and MoveOn.org -- just to name three of the largest 527s in the nation, each of which opposes Bush with sums that make NFRW's budget look like chump change.

Let me be clear: I oppose the President's position on 527s. I am against most, if not all, limits on campaign speech -- including those by independent groups. The President was wrong to sign McCain-Feingold into law, and he is wrong again here. I would further argue that fewer donors would give to such independent groups -- and we'd have fewer "shadowy" ads -- if it were easier to give larger amounts directly to candidates or to provide traditional "soft money" contributions to political parties. President Bush's position strikes me as rank opportunism -- and it is so , in part, because 527 contributions have overwhelmingly benefitted his opposition.
 
tpahl said:
Not only do I agree, I also want to emphasize that it did not have enough to pass had Bush vetoed it. Also I want to point out that Kerry voted for it too.

Didn't need you to 'point out' anything. I can read, as well as the others here. Unlike you, some of us try to post things that are of interest to what we are discussing, not just items which we think furthers some 'grand agenda.'
 
Kathianne said:
Didn't need you to 'point out' anything. I can read, as well as the others here. Unlike you, some of us try to post things that are of interest to what we are discussing, not just items which we think furthers some 'grand agenda.'

Yeah your post sure was of interest to everyone. I am sure everyone loved wasting their time reading your post whose sole purpose seems to be to piss me off. Mine on the otherhand brought to peoples attention something they may have not known, and that is that Kerry supports the same crappy law. And that Bush not only supported it but could have singlehandedly stopped it. You already knew this? great! No reason to get pissed off if I mention it. You have posted a lot of crap that I already knew, did I get pissy at you? no. I treat you with respect. Try to do the same to me. Thanks.

Travis
 
DKSuddeth said:
If these groups are classified '527s', does that mean there are 526 different types before them?

That is government for you! Plus aren't their 401Cs? That means there is probably 401A's and 401Bs. I wonder how many others have letters after them too!?!? We should probably create a department of organization numbering and record keeping.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top