Campaign Finance Reform for Dems..Do as I say not as I do

[Bonnie]

The Demo-cash-ic Party

Fewer than one taxpayer in nine checks the box on form 1040 to allocate 3$ of his or her taxes as "clean" money for the "Presidential Campaign Fund." Only 11 percent of us check this box because we all know that more of this money would go to candidates we oppose than those we support.

Taxpayers also recognize that htis "clean" money has done nothing to stop dirty politics. Democratic candidate John F Kerry, e.g., got 75 million in federal funds in exchange for agreeing to stop his use of special interest money, but extremist-left organizations such as MOveOn.Org closely linked to Kerry's campaign continue to fund tens of millions of dollars of anti-Republican TV hate ads in a shameful circumvention of campaign finance laws.

But if you have been required to join a labor union, and like up to 40 percent of union members you vote Republican or independent, a sizeable chunk of your forced dues is being spent to elect Democrats. And this is done without your union bosses needing to get prior consent of check-off before they make partisan use of your money.

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14585

Campaign Finance Reform, we were told, was going to free our politics from the undue influence of wealthy special interest groups and greedy rich individuals.........Blah blah blatty blah blah.
Menawhile George Sorros uses loopholes in the law to spend 75million of his own money to defeat Bush.

 

[tpahl]

The Demo-cash-ic Party

Fewer than one taxpayer in nine checks the box on form 1040 to allocate 3$ of his or her taxes as "clean" money for the "Presidential Campaign Fund." Only 11 percent of us check this box because we all know that more of this money would go to candidates we oppose than those we support.

Taxpayers also recognize that htis "clean" money has done nothing to stop dirty politics. Democratic candidate John F Kerry, e.g., got 75 million in federal funds in exchange for agreeing to stop his use of special interest money, but extremist-left organizations such as MOveOn.Org closely linked to Kerry's campaign continue to fund tens of millions of dollars of anti-Republican TV hate ads in a shameful circumvention of campaign finance laws.

But if you have been required to join a labor union, and like up to 40 percent of union members you vote Republican or independent, a sizeable chunk of your forced dues is being spent to elect Democrats. And this is done without your union bosses needing to get prior consent of check-off before they make partisan use of your money.

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14585

Campaign Finance Reform, we were told, was going to free our politics from the undue influence of wealthy special interest groups and greedy rich individuals.........Blah blah blatty blah blah.
Menawhile George Sorros uses loopholes in the law to spend 75million of his own money to defeat Bush.

If you truly thought campaign finance reform was going to reform campiang finances and get money out of politics, i have bridge in brooklyn you might be interested in. So long as politicians have power, they have something people are going to want to buy. Money does not currupt politics, politics currupt money. Campaign finance reform should be renamed incumbenant protection act, because that is essentially what it does. It makes it harder for challengers to raise and spend money, more difficult to critisize sitting incumbants, and makes it even tougher for third parties to raise funds (which is why botht eh R's and D's supported it.


The following is a great site and summary on what is really wrong with campaign reform in America. It is a list of completly different things than you hear in the media and from McCain and Feingold (or whatever that other guy from WI was named.)

http://www.realcampaignreform.org/what_you_should_know.htm

The media can do what you cannot
The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of the corporate news media to provide unlimited coverage to candidates of their own choosing. This is as it should be.

But if you, as an individual, support a candidate the media does not cover, your First Amendment right to buy compensating publicity for that candidate is severely limited by law (through contribution limits and other obstacles that will be described below). And this is not as it should be.

The established corporate media have an unrestricted right to free speech, but you do not.

Your freedoms of speech and association are severely limited
The law only allows you to give $1,000 per election to the candidate of your choice, not nearly enough to counteract the publicity the corporate media gives to the candidates it chooses, or the legal advantages the ruling parties have conferred on themselves. And it would take 100,000 contributions of $1,000 to equal the money the major parties take from the taxpayers for their campaigns and conventions each election cycle.

Death by red tape
A large portion of the money challengers have left over after they've paid their ballot access and fundraising costs is consumed complying with the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). These costs are incidental to the incumbents and ruling parties, but burdensome to many challengers and all third parties.

And there is a whole lot more. That was just a small sample.

 

[dilloduck]

Gotta agree with ya on this one----when money buys free speech and better lawyers all we can do it wait for the anarchy and class warfare

 

[Bonnie]

If you truly thought campaign finance reform was going to reform campiang finances and get money out of politics, i have bridge in brooklyn you might be interested in. So long as politicians have power, they have something people are going to want to buy. Money does not currupt politics, politics currupt money. Campaign finance reform should be renamed incumbenant protection act, because that is essentially what it does. It makes it harder for challengers to raise and spend money, more difficult to critisize sitting incumbants, and makes it even tougher for third parties to raise funds (which is why botht eh R's and D's supported it.


The following is a great site and summary on what is really wrong with campaign reform in America. It is a list of completly different things than you hear in the media and from McCain and Feingold (or whatever that other guy from WI was named.)

http://www.realcampaignreform.org/what_you_should_know.htm







And there is a whole lot more. That was just a small sample.

Of course I didn't think it was a good idea. I never supported it, and that was not the point of this thread, I was merely making a point that a lot of Dems were on board for this ridiculous law and now they are the ones abusing it. Again no surprise there!!!!

 

[tpahl]

Gotta agree with ya on this one----when money buys free speech and better lawyers all we can do it wait for the anarchy and class warfare

I would say the opposite. When you can not buy speech and better lawyers is when you are really screwed.

Travis

 

[tpahl]

Of course I didn't think it was a good idea. I never supported it, and that was not the point of this thread, I was merely making a point that a lot of Dems were on board for this ridiculous law and now they are the ones abusing it. Again no surprise there!!!!

A lot of republicans were for the ridicolous law as well. But niether party are abusing the law. They are just working around it as most everyone expected they would.

Travis