I was in favor of campaign finance reform

[notbush]

and I'm disappointed in my party. Both McCain and Feingold agree that these 527's or whatever the hell they are, violate the spirit of the campaign finance reform law that was passed last year.
The repugs wanted to see us embarrassed by a FEC ruling shutting them down. That didn't happen....NOW they will have the argument against 527's + they can raise as much money as they want using them(because we did it first).
Soros better be ready to REALLY open up his checkbook....because I feel a flood of repug money coming in.
Actually, I don't feel that good about taking Mr. Soros's money in the first place.....but that's another thread.

[Democat]

1. We didn't "do it first" - that's a right wing talking point!

The right wing groups have been running ads all along, from what I understand, even as they complain about other people doing the same thing.

Most high level Bush supporters say one thing and do the opposite.

[notbush]

2. The FEC challenge was against

specifically Move-On and Media Fund. We won....big fucking deal.
To win, we got a ruling which goes against the authors of the campaign finance law. Now let the right-wing, billionaire money pour in.
If we REALLY wanted to keep unlimited soft money out of political races, we should have followed the spirit of the law.
I think we have lost all credibility on campaign finance reform.
Now, I afraid we will be swamped by repug soft-money like we have been in the past.

[mzmolly]

9. I think we can compete on equal footing for once.

The Rethugs have always "swamped" the campaign of their choice with money, now we are fighting back!

IM GLAD AS HELL WE WON! The idea behind CFR is to level the playing field. It's not all about principal.

[sandnsea]

3. Yes they have

Some of those ads run during the primaries were from Republican 527's. They've been doing it all along, it's just their groups haven't gotten the same public support as groups like Moveon. THAT is what they're upset about, not the money, but that the people are getting behind these groups in a big way.

[notbush]

4. They haven't raised the money like we have....

Nobody was giving "Club for growth" 2 million dollars,......They will be soon.

[sandnsea]

5. We'll see

Club for Growth isn't new. They only raised $1.7 million last year. We'll see what happens. Not sure there's that many Republicans willing to let go of millions of dollars at a time.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0210-12.htm

[looking glass]

6. CFR was just a terrible idea

Money will always be in politics, and there isn't any way to stop it.

Both the Left and the Right accepted horrible restrictions on the First Amendment to enact CFR, and got exactly nothing of any value to our political process.

Letting CFR go forward gave the green light for Congress to restrict the First Amendment whenever it wants to.

Congress blew it by passing this horror show.

Bush blew it by signing it.

The Supreme Court blew it by not throwing it out 10 seconds after it went on the docket.

[Mattforclark]

7. The obvious course of action

I would think, is to throw out 527s as soon as the election is over, and move to full public financing of presidential elections. That sounds great to me, but you can't change the election rules in the middle of the election.

Money will indeed always be in campaigns, but we can make it public money, rather than donations from people trying to influence (make corrupt) politicians with $. The problem is not the money, the problem is the corruption and undue influence caused by money as it exists today.

[mzmolly]

8. "Club for Growth" ran ads against Dean

A Rethuglican 527 group. The R's simply want to have the financial advantage they always have. Poor widdle repukes. :evilgrin:

[Zorra]

10. We need a Public Campaign Finance System.

Dennis Kucinich is advocating this::

Private control of campaign financing leads to private control of the government itself and schemes like the privatization of social security, which would put trillions in retirement funds of Main Street workers at the disposal of Wall Street speculators. Public control of the political process requires public financing. The restoration of our American Democracy depends upon public financing. The Supreme Court, equating money with free speech, will not restrict the power of corporate interests to dominate government. The establishment of our democracy began with the Constitution. Let us renew the Constitution by amending it, requiring public financing to redeem from the perishable fires of corporate control an imperishable government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Banning soft money is a step in the right direction, but doubling hard money limits is a giant step the other way, and one that has received much less attention. The National Voting Rights Institute challenged that change on behalf of a coalition of non-wealthy voters, candidates, and public interest organizations -- including the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, and ACORN. That suit alleged, quite accurately, that doubling the hard money limits excludes non-wealthy voters and candidates from the political process on the basis of their economic status, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. When only 0.11% of the voting age population contributed sums of at least $1,000 to a 2002 congressional candidate, doubling the limit to $2,000 provides even more power to a tiny financial elite. Those large contributions amounted to 55.5% of the candidates' individual fundraising.

It is very difficult to run for office at all if you are neither rich nor willing to accept money from corporate interests. I know. I'm trying to do it.

Banning soft money is a positive step which has oddly overshadowed in the media the bigger negative step of doubling hard money. What we need, other than media reform, is true campaign finance reform, complete public financing and the criminalization of bribery.

http://www.kucinich.us/issues/campaignfin.php

[looking glass]

12. Public Campaign Financing is a polite way of gutting the 1st Amendment

Limiting money in campaigns is just a fancy way of controlling how much air time people or groups can use to express their point of view.

ANY restrictions on money, or ANY public funding ends up with the same result - a rationing of political speech.

Money in politics is a bad thing, but it is not the worst thing. The worst thing is some faceless government official, appointed by God-knows-what administration, deciding if this advertisement or that legally-organized group is worthy of buying access to political speech. Do you REALLY want a Republican appointee at the FEC setting the rules of engagement during a campign?

CFR wasn't a flawed implementation of a good idea, it was the logical outcome of every attempt to limit money in politics. Horrible law, horrible idea, and every attempt to do the same thing will end up the same way. Rationing political speech is the last thing that we need.

[wubbathompson]

11. Campaign Finance Reform

Was a gimmick and a joke.