The RNC has filed a lawsuit in the hopes of declaring so-called "soft money" television ads illegal. The RNC thinks that the ads are a violation of the new McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance Reform Act that went into effect this year because they claim the ads will influence the Presidential election. They point to ads from groups like MoveOn.org.

But when does this attack become one on free speech. Shouldn't political groups be allowed to say what they want if they can get enough contributions to by air time? The ads aren't breaking the Campaign Finance laws unless they specifically say "Don't vote for Bush."

That's the whole point! This whole thing is just another distraction by the RNC to distract from the Bush Administration's terrible record -- from healthcare to the economy to the environment...

political free speech is only a good thing when it benefits the republican party...now that the RNC has seen that the Democrats ARE in fact unifying behind John Kerry with the single goal of ousting bush, free speech is a BAD thing..besides the only way to combat these sorts of ads would be for bush's corporate benefactors to have to crawl out of the shadows and make themselves known....

The gop has been abusing soft money for years, but now that the Dems have bandied together and figured out a strategy to beat them at their own game they cry foul....yet more right-wing hypocrisy...

We could argue for hours if it was illegal in the past. But that's the past.

The point is, it's illegal now.

If John Kerry is as honorable as you say, then he'll call off his dogs. The media is already making the connection with these "loose cannons" and the Heinz corporation. It'll play out a bit further, just watch what happens. Kerry will either tell them to stop, or they'll be stopped for breaking the new Federal Law by the courts.

The bipartisan authors of this law, both Democrat and Republican, agree that this is exactly why this law was written.

(I'm sure Truebrit will have something to say about this.)
Take it away TB!

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

Frankly, the Republicans have so much bad karma built up over the dirty campaign tactics they've employed in the last decade, I don't really give a (*)(*)(*)(*) how the Dems win this election.

Republicans even used the federal government to bankroll their campaign attacks - Ken Starr replacing Robert Fiske (a Republican lawyer indepedently appointed) in the frivolous Whitewater debacle because the conservatives didn't like that Fiske cleared the Clintons of wrongdoing quickly and inexpensively. Instead, they decided to oust Fiske, plant Starr, and have Starr drag it out for two years until the 96 elections - all at the expense of taxpayers. Think of all the free publicity on the news, eh?

I don't think I even need to point out how much money was wasted on the ridiculousness of MonicaGate: surprise, also with Starr at the helm. This strategy successfully tainted Gore and undoubtedly had at least a small effect on the outcome - which is significant, given how close the race was.

I agree with campaign finance reform in general, but Bush sure as hell didn't get in office under its principles.

What's good for the Elephant is good for the Donkey; at least for the time being.

President Bush didn't get into office by the principles of the new Finance Reform laws because it wasn't written until after the last election. It's called the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Act.

What all the hullaballoo is over the fact that organizations, falling under section 527 of this law, can do as they wish as long as they have no affiliation with any political party. Well, the Democrats are trying to do an "end run" to use this provision in their favor. There are ties that have been identified between backers of one of these 527 orgainizations (moveon.org) and the Democratic party.

Certain RNC activities were pointed out by the DNC early on in this campaign and the Republicans shut down because of it. Now the same finger pointers are engaging in exactly the same behavior. To turn your phrase, "what's good for the Donkey should be good for the Elephants"

The authors of the law, Senators McCain and Feingold, are presently saying that organizations like moveon.org are illegal. I find it ironic that many Democrats are saying it's not McCain's or Feingold's place to interpret the law. They wrote the law. They, above all else, would know its intent. However we'll have to leave it to the Federal Election Commission and/or the Supreme Court.

Whether or not it's been done in the past is moot. It can't be done today. The FEC will be making a ruling on this in May. One supposes until then, moveon.org will continue their illegal activities until told to cease. If you care to see for yourself, here's a link:

http://www.democracy21.org/index.asp...-A157116A2F65}

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

I understand what the hullaballoo is about - I just don't care. That is my opinion of principle, not what I think the courts will or should do.

It's a fact that Republicans have used innumerable dirty campaign tricks in the past decade, and I don't think Dems in general (much less Kerry, who is not involved with the ad campaign in this topic) take too much of an ethical hit attempting to oust an incumbent President with tactics that are tame compared to tactics Republicans have used as recently as the last presidential election.

The past is never moot, particularly given that the same Republican leaders that employed Whitewater and MonicaGate as free campaign ads are still in office. Until Republicans start to live up to the spirit of a clean campaign - and they've got a lot to make up for given '96 and 2000 - I'm whimsically smirking at a few television ads that squeaked through but will be squelched long before November.

In your first post you cited Kerry's honor. Can you honestly say that the Republicans have set a good example of honor over the past decade?

YES!

No different than the other side. None.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

When did Democrats use millions of taxpayer dollars deluging a sitting President with litigation when they knew for a fact that the premises were ridiculous merely to garner media attention?

You're deluding yourself.

MEET the Repugnicans "527" orgs - their soft money people:



A 501(c)3 foundation is a foundation that allows individuals and businesses and organizations to donate gifts, money, or land to a district with 501(c)3 status and receive a tax benefit. To secure 501(c)3 status, a district must meet all of the necessary guidelines as spelled out by the Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, several major conservative activist groups - including anti-abortion organizations, anti-tax activists and other key parts of the Republican base - joined with liberals in saying the Republican efforts could jeopardize the ability of a wide spectrum of advocacy groups to get our their message.

"The application of limits on political parties to non-party groups would have effects throughout the political process on liberal, conservative and non-partisan groups alike," said the letter, signed by Americans for Tax Reform, the Club for Growth and four other groups.

The Club for Growth is one of the few conservative 527s that has been active in this election cycle, raising about $1.6 million, according to Noble's group.

The challenge to these independent political organizations was launched by Americans for a Better Country, a Republican 527 that has raised no money and generated no advertising.

The group described a series of planned activities similar to those being undertaken by Democratic 527s and asked the FEC to rule on the legality of those hypothetical activities.

Democratic groups said the ABC petition was a stalking-horse for the Republican Party, noting that one of the lead signatories on the ABC petition is George Terwilliger, who was an attorney on Bush's legal team during the 2000 recount in Florida.

Terwilliger dismissed allegations that ABC is a fictitious organization created simply to challenge the operation of the Democratic 527s.

"ABC exists," Terwilliger said, "but before we go out and start collecting a lot of money, we want to know what we are permitted to do and not do."

Terwilliger said the case is important because it may set new limits on the role of 527s, and "It's been made an even greater issue because a number of groups have gone out and collected a lot of money without trying to determine the legality of their activities."

The 527 groups get their name from the section of the federal tax code referring to the tax-exempt status that allows such groups to operate without the normal financial restrictions and disclosure rules for political action committees. To maintain their tax status, such groups cannot expressly advocate for or against the defeat of a candidate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Work
Guerriero calls ban un-American

May 19, 2003

• Steve May
(Washington) The Liberty Education Forum, sister organization to Log Cabin Republicans, has issued a white paper detailing a ten-year evaluation of the military Don't Ask, Don't Tell personnel policy. This study, authored by Aaron Belkin, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, examined whether the military ban on homosexuals serving openly in the armed forces enhances military effectiveness.

"This ban simply does not strengthen the United States military," said Liberty Education Forum President Patrick Guerriero. "This is the only law in America that authorizes the firing of an American simply for being gay, it is wrong, it does not strengthen our military and it is un-American," he continued.

"Our study shows that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy imposes five different types of costs on the armed forces, including talent-loss, financial costs, undermining the military's reputation, undermining the work environment and unit cohesion, and increased violence against women," added Aaron Belkin, author of the study.

The Liberty Education Forum is a 501c(3) organization providing new insights on gay and lesbian issues. LEF is the sister organization to the Log Cabin Republicans.

(in case you're not aware - Log Cabin Reps are a gay organization of Repugnicans - Barney Frank being one of the leaders)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
January 17, 1997
TRANSCRIPT



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed today to pay a $300,000 fine as part of his punishment for violating House ethics rules. A report by the House Ethics Committee special counsel also recommended Gingrich be reprimanded by the full House in a vote scheduled for Tuesday. A reprimand is not as severe as a censure and would allow Gingrich to retain his post as Speaker of the House. We have more now from Kwame Holman.

The subcommittee found that in regard to two separate projects Mr. Gingrich engaged in activity that was involving 501C-3 organizations; it was substantially motivated by partisan political goals. The subcommittee also found that Mr. Gingrich had provided the committee with material information about one of those projects that was inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable. The first project was a television program called "The American Opportunities Workshop." It is many times referred to as AOW. It took place in May of 1990, and the idea for this project came from Mr. Gingrich. And he was principally responsible for developing the message that was to be broadcast through this program. AOW involved broadcasting a television program on subjects concerning governmental issues.

Mr. Gingrich had hoped by using this program he would be able to create a citizen’s movement and in doing this workshops were set up throughout the country where people could gather and watch the program and where people could be recruited for this citizen’s movement. While the program was educational, the citizen’s movement was also considered to be a tool to recruit non-voters and people who are apolitical to the Republican Party. AOW started off as a project of GOPAC. GOPAC is a Political Action Committee which is dedicated to, among other things, achieving Republican control of the United States Congress. The methods GOPAC uses to achieve this goal include developing and articulating a political message and disseminating that message as widely as possible. One avenue of dissemination for GOPAC’s message was AOW.

The program, however consumed a great deal of GOPAC’s resources. Because of this, Mr. Gingrich and others at GOPAC decided to transfer the American Opportunities workshop to a 501C-3 organization in order to attract tax deductible funding.




The NRA is a 501c too folks, and they joined with the Sierra Club (you heard right) to fight the restrictions on 501cs and 527s. Talk about your strange bedfellows? Nope - not a bit. Both aprties are bought adn sold by their own special interests

.......is all of that info really news to y'all? You knew about none of this?
Read on .......................



House GOP Committee Pays Soft Money Fine
Fri Apr 9,12:10 PM ET
By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The National Republican Congressional Committee has agreed to pay a $280,000 civil fine for transferring big donations known as "soft money" to an outside group to finance ads in the 2000 election.

The Federal Election Commission says the NRCC transferred $500,000 in soft money to the U.S. Family Network during the primary season in 1999 to fund political ads that the NRCC should have paid for with a mix of soft money — unlimited donations from companies and others — and hard money, limited contributions from individuals.

The U.S. Family Network sent $300,000 to another group, Americans for Economic Growth. AEG then spent about $260,000 to run radio ads in fall 1999 accusing Democrats of planning to raid the Social Security fund and use it on other programs.

One ad aired in the districts of four Democratic House incumbents considered vulnerable in the 2000 election. The other ran in the districts of six Republican House incumbents and one Democratic incumbent the FEC said were "perceived to need shoring up to ally themselves with Republicans" on an upcoming House budget vote.

The NRCC knew the U.S. Family Network planned to transfer money from the party committee to another group to pay for anti-Democratic ads, the FEC found.

The commission announced the outcome of the case Friday. The FEC inquiry was prompted by a complaint filed by the NRCC's rival, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Under a law that took effect after the 2002 election, the national party committees are banned from spending soft money.