Campaign Finance Reform PASSED

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Oft criticized as they are, and mostly rightfully so, the Democrats and Republicans of the US appear to have finally come through with a fair, useful, universally beneficial, and necessary piece of legislature: Campaign Finance Reform.

Today (Wednesday) the House of Representatives narrowly passed the Chavy-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act. The Democrats virtually all voted for it, and just enough Republicans voted for it to get the required majority. The Senate has already passed a similar act, and seeing as it is Democrat-controlled, it will in all likelihood pass it. President Bush has already said that he would sign the act.

For those of you who don't know, this act will eliminate unlimited soft money contributions to political parties, thereby greatly reducing corporations' hold on the US Congress. Public funds will now be used to fund elections. Hard money donations will still be allowed, and by a Republican Amendment very narrowly passed to the act (by less than 10 votes), the hard money limit will be increased for $1,000 to 2,000. While I don't like the amendment because it will favor the rich in being able to contribute 2k instead of 1k (most people couldn't even afford to contribute more than 100-200 dollars), I still consider the passage of the act a great victory for fairness and democracy in elections.

Now candidates who may not have had the wealth to seriously run for candidacy in the past will now be on a much more level playing field. Representatives should be elected by their constituency based on their values and political beliefs and agendas, not based on how much of a fortune they have amassed.

 

[damunzy]

Are you sure this doesn't belong in the Stories forum or the Humor and Jokes forum? I find it hard to believe that those leeches could have passed this. I appauld them for pulling their heads out of their arses long enought to do so!

 

[Juize]

You mean Republicans are actually trying to REDUCE CORRUPTION!?!...

Wow. We live mysterious times.

 

[Greadius]

The only problem I have with this bill is the limiting of special interest political advertisments within 30 days of the election.

The government is deaming groups with a political message can't buy time on TV. I think that is a clearly unconstitutional provision and will probably kill the bill in the courts.

I do like most of the provisions though. It should usher in a huge change in campaign strategy. Its about time...

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Greadius
The only problem I have with this bill is the limiting of special interest political advertisments within 30 days of the election.

The government is deaming groups with a political message can't buy time on TV. I think that is a clearly unconstitutional provision and will probably kill the bill in the courts.

I do like most of the provisions though. It should usher in a huge change in campaign strategy. Its about time...

Yeah, they are going to have a hard time getting that one to fly. I mean, are they seriously telling me that I and a couple of my friends can't get together and buy TV time to say this, that, or the other about various issues at election time? I'm not saying that the current practice is good, but considering that polical speach is the most protected type by the first amendment, the courts are going to shred that part of it.

 

[damunzy]

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20020214/ts/politics_finance_dc.html

And according to this report Republicans fought it tooth and nail. To quote yahoo "Despite fierce objections from Republican leaders..."

quote from ApocalypseKurtz:
President Bush has already said that he would sign the act.

According to to the post on Yahoo! the white house made a statement denoucing the bill just passed by the H.R.

 

[damunzy]

Originally posted by knowltok2


Yeah, they are going to have a hard time getting that one to fly. I mean, are they seriously telling me that I and a couple of my friends can't get together and buy TV time to say this, that, or the other about various issues at election time?

I don't think they can stop that but they might be able to stop corporations from being able to donate to your cause. I don't believe that corporations are guaranteed freedom of speech.

 

[Richard III]

Great news. I'm curious, though, how public funds will now play a role. I'm about to go and search for myself, but any early reports on that would be appreciated

 

[Greadius]

I know for Presidential elections both candidates spend all their money on the primaries, and then recieve public funding for the main election run.

Since the presidential elections are the only national ones, I believe public funds for elections are a state-wide issue. I'm 95% sure Florida doesn't offer public funding for elections.

On the freedom of speech issue... its an absolute truth that the only freedom of political expression being limited financially is a corperations or interest group, which doesn't have Constitutionally protected rights. An individuals financial political freedom increases since their donation amount has doubled.
However, the issue with advertisement control is the government placing control over media outlets in regards to political advertising, which I think is very dubious.

I'd also place a bet that if Bush gets the oppertunity (Major news distraction) he will quietly veto the bill.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius

I'd also place a bet that if Bush gets the oppertunity (Major news distraction) he will quietly veto the bill.

White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer has said that Bush's position on the bill is "don't count on me for a veto" - to the Republican Congressional Leadership.

I think he is in essence giving up campaign finance reform and trying to get some of his own more conservative agendas through - faith based initiatives, missile defense, his budget, etc.

 

[VoodooAce]

Yes!

Props to Meehan and Shays for jumping on the opportunity provided when Enron put this shamefull situation back in the news.

The less money in politics the better. I say keep going. All this concern about unions not having to ask its members before making a donation.....just take away their right to donate.

Ther should be NO money in our politics. Large corporations and special interests run our nation, not us....

 

[amadeus]

Campaign finance reform is a kneejerk reaction to the collapse of Enron.

Unlike my friends on the left, I seem to have the trust in people not to compromise their ideologies for money.

If money compromised ideologies, at least on the right -- (I can't speak for the Clintonites) -- if President Bush had given favors for Enron, would Enron be bankrupt today?

Also, Enron actually favored the more liberal energy policy rather than the Bush Administration's plan. Didn't sound like Bush was doing Enron a favor there.

Back to finance reform though (i.e. Incumbency Protection Act of 2002), you are violating the Constitution -- the *freedom* of the press. For some reason, the left has, for some reason, wanted to eliminate any sort of influence from outside the government.

The left, in my opinion, has failed to see that there is a matching influence, during elections, between interest groups and ideological preferences.

 

[VoodooAce]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Campaign finance reform is a kneejerk reaction to the collapse of Enron.

Unlike my friends on the left, I seem to have the trust in people not to compromise their ideologies for money.

If money compromised ideologies, at least on the right -- (I can't speak for the Clintonites) -- if President Bush had given favors for Enron, would Enron be bankrupt today?

Also, Enron actually favored the more liberal energy policy rather than the Bush Administration's plan. Didn't sound like Bush was doing Enron a favor there.

Back to finance reform though (i.e. Incumbency Protection Act of 2002), you are violating the Constitution -- the *freedom* of the press. For some reason, the left has, for some reason, wanted to eliminate any sort of influence from outside the government.

The left, in my opinion, has failed to see that there is a matching influence, during elections, between interest groups and ideological preferences.

Kneejerk reaction???? Man, RM, where've you been the last few years?

"Unlike my friends on the left, I seem to have the trust in people not to compromise their ideologies for money."

Geez, RM. Do you really believe that????? That has to be the most naive statement I've read on this board in a long time. And it illustrates FULLY a huge difference between the right and left.

You can NOT possibly believe this is true...even for a second.....Right? Cuz I got news for you. It has been proven over and over and over and over and over again that what you say is false. That is WHY we have unions in the first place. But so many on the right are ignorant to thisFACT or they just plain ignore it.

So, anyway, I got news for you RM. Ideologies have and always will be compromised for money. Anything can and will be compromised for money.

Not everyone is like you and I, my friend.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Campaign finance reform is a kneejerk reaction to the collapse of Enron.

Unlike my friends on the left, I seem to have the trust in people not to compromise their ideologies for money.

If money compromised ideologies, at least on the right -- (I can't speak for the Clintonites) -- if President Bush had given favors for Enron, would Enron be bankrupt today?

Also, Enron actually favored the more liberal energy policy rather than the Bush Administration's plan. Didn't sound like Bush was doing Enron a favor there.

Back to finance reform though (i.e. Incumbency Protection Act of 2002), you are violating the Constitution -- the *freedom* of the press. For some reason, the left has, for some reason, wanted to eliminate any sort of influence from outside the government.

The left, in my opinion, has failed to see that there is a matching influence, during elections, between interest groups and ideological preferences.

Seeing as the House is Republican-controlled, a number of right wing representatives had to vote for the Shays-Meehan Bill in order to pass it. Not to mention the fact the one of it's cosponsors, Christopher Shays of Conneticut, is a Republican.

Your allegations of it being a kneejerk reaction to Enron is greatly misleading and falsified. In fact, Campaign Finance Reform was first brought up SEVEN YEARS AGO by REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHN MC CAIN. He remains a huge supporter of the bill. The bill has been seriously talked about since 1999, including a presidential campaign pledge by McCain to reform campaign finance at the primaries. The bill picked up alot of steam since Enron, due mostly to the public finally wanting campaign finance and politicians listening to them.

Needless to say, SOFT MONEY IS BAD. It corrupts our government, inducing it to do favors for the wealthy and powerful without the best interests of the American public in mind. Shays-Meehan was a great success for the House, and if Bush signs it, it will be the best thing he has done since he took office. If it passes I will have a renewed vigor and eagerness to follow both national and local politics, because I will have a new faith, admiration, and respect for the candidates.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by rmsharpe

Unlike my friends on the left, I seem to have the trust in people not to compromise their ideologies for money.

Of course you do, you're a conservative!

You share the same ideology as the humongously wealthy few in our nation who, under current election laws, can donate unlimited soft money to political parties. And these wealthy few will be allowed to kep their power and get even richer, at the expense of the working class.

 

[PinkyGen]

I am not going to take the naive viewpoint that money has no influence in politics. However, the actual benefits of the currently passed bill are somewhat limited, and I don't think will actually make a major change in the system.

Reasons: The Crux of the bill is the soft money ban to national parties. While a step in the right direction, it is going to have several unintended consuquences.
1. Actual individuals will have more, not less influence, on politics, since the amount they can give in hard money is actuall increased.
2. Nothing has been done about PAC's (Political Action Committees) which can still give substantial amounts of money in hard money (far more than individuals.)
3. The withdraw of national soft money will weaken both of the parties. The parties decide where the soft money will go, and who it will support. This is one, albeit of many factors, that American political parties are more homogenous than they once more. The question has to be raised if whether it is good thing to weaken the parties.
4. While the bill bans soft money to national parties, it does not ban soft money to state or local political parties. This is a lucrative loophole.
5. Finally, and the most ironic one to the general support for campaign finance reform on the left is that this will actual hurt the Democrats far more than the Republicans. The Democrats, while not making as much as the Republicans in Soft money, still make more of their total party earnings in soft money, aka, the Democrats are more dependent on soft money than campaigns to individuals. The Republicans literally bury the Democrats in hard money fundraising.

While I like the spirit of the bill, and admit the existence of problems, this bill will not the cure all most were hoping for.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by VoodooAce

That is WHY we have unions in the first place.

To help protect an overly bloated, wasteful government?

So, anyway, I got news for you RM. Ideologies have and always will be compromised for money.

Ahhh...the effect on trust of humans after Clinton-Gore...

President George Bush is not corrupt.
Vice President Cheney is not corrupt.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert is not corrupt.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott is not corrupt.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is not corrupt.
House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt is not corrupt.

Most people in Congress aren't corrupt. Democrats and Republicans alike.

I can't quite understand the left because it seems as if they have a love for a larger and more involved (or in my case, intrusive) government, but when there is a single penny from Citibank or IBM, etc... it seems that everyone in Congress suddenly becomes an Irish cop in prohibition-era Chicago.

Now, one thing I will never understand, from anyone is that -- if why is there campaign finance reform when Enron is the shining example of how ineffective "soft money" campaign donations really are.

What I'd also like to know is, why do they want to block all money from businesses? This will infact hurt the smaller businesses, by beating down the pursuit of their political effectiveness.

Let's say you are a tobacco farmer, and you've got candidate "A" and candidate "B" running for Governor. Candidate "A" says he will work to offer temporary small business tax incentives. Candidate "B" believes that tobacco farmers should have a fine imposed for producing a "public safety risk."

Joe Farmer & Family aren't going to donate to candidate "B" if they hope to survive in small business. You're not buying a farmer, you're supporting your ideology.

Also, with this reform, you're actually promoting the use of illegal campaign contributions. Let's just say that Al Gore will be making a few more trips to Buddhist temples before the 2004 primaries.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz


Of course you do, you're a conservative!

You share the same ideology as the humongously wealthy few in our nation who...

We must have a lot of wealthy people in America, because the last time I checked -- George Bush recieved 47 million votes.*

* (if my numbers are off, correct me)

 

[DinoDoc]

The Democrats manage to shoot themselves in the foot and limit free speech in one fell swoop!!! Will wonders never cease.

 

[Greadius]

Rush Limbaugh's ditto-heads stand out like sore thumbs, don't they?

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Most people in Congress aren't corrupt. Democrats and Republicans alike.

You're absolutely right. I don't agree with the idea that soft money is corrupting politics. I think the individual politicians are trustworthy.

The problem is that running a campaign requires them to raise as much money as possible, because if they don't their opponent will. In individual races name recognition is everything, and to get name recognition you need to spend money. I think what the current system does is force politicians to spend an obscene amount of time and dignity begging people for money. If you'll ask individuals who hold political office they'll say in concert the worst part of the job is raising the money. Granted, this bill wont FIX that, but it is a big step towards having elections that aren't decided by campaign coffers.

Originally posted by rmsharpe

We must have a lot of wealthy people in America, because the last time I checked -- George Bush recieved 47 million votes.*

And Al Gore got 47.5 million [dance]
Of course the only vote that mattered was 5-4 :midfinger