So do we think Campaign Finance Reform was dumb now?

I, for one, never thought campaign finace reform was a realistic goal . . . people who are so intent and have so much money will find a way around any little rule . . . .

I never paid attention to the whole issue . . . I guess I should have . . I never even thought it would get passed Congress . . . hmm low and behold

MoveOn.org and SBVFT are not comperable entitites in any way shape or form beyond being 527s.

SBVFT was formed very recently for the express purpose of prosecuting a smear campaign against John Kerry.

MoveOn.org is a liberal advocacy group that, in addition to running ads critical of George Bush (and while we may quibble about points of emphasis these ads are largely factual), runs registration and get out the vote drives, is lobbying for a paper back-up for electronic voting, etc. as well as having been around a while.

Realize this isn't really the point of your topic but I've noticed there has yet again been a tendency to seek the equal and opposite left wing equivalent of the swift boat assholes, as if everything the right is capable of has got to somehow be reflected for "balance".

Personally I think they should just end all political TV ads. They cut all cigarette ads, and hard liquor ads were gone for a long time. There's a precedent so they should just follow suit.

That's an interesting idea. Banning money from politics is unconstitutional (thus the 527s), but you can at least make laws about how it can be spent. Or maybe not. If some rich guy wants to run a political ad, isn't that his 1stA right?

I think I prefer soft-money going to the 527s rather than the parties. Loosens the stranglehold the parties have on debate, even if just a little bit. I think that's good for our democracy in the long term.

Man, you are so full of it. MoveOn.org is the ultimate smear campaign. Bush is simply smart enough to know that people don't buy the fictional BS coming from these bomb throwers. Why give a group that slanders and lies about you credibility by bringing attention to them? Nobody is listening anyways. They are merely preaching to the choir - I doubt they have changed any minds among the undecided because their ads are so poorly produced and contain not even the slightest grain of factual information. I think they have offended more people than anything else. Poor old George Soros is getting hosed by the people who are running that organization. He should put his money into something run by mature adults.

While you would never admit it because you are such a partisan shill but I know you have not read the book written by the Swift Boat veterans. I have read it and that makes me better informed than guys like you who get their information spoon fed to them by the Kerry campaign. If you look at both sides of the story (which clearly you have not), you can only come to one conclusion: Kerry is the one that is lying.

Mr. Boeing,
Is your pocket book in any way tied to this administration? Do you work for the military industrial complex? Most members here do not work for said complex, and I believe most would agree that the complex is better suited to a republican administration than to a democratic one (the high road and all that)...

Thank you for your time,

hardeeharhar

(good witch of the west voice) Be gone, troll! You have no power here!

I'm fine with the 527 groups. Keep them coming.

The only real thing I think needs to be done about political ads is that they need to be treated like an actually commercial, meaning you can't make stuff up.

Take for example, an advertisement for a cookie. A company is selling a sugar cookie. They obviouly want people to buy their cookie but realize through their studies that chocolate chip cookies sell better. They decide that if people would just taste their sugar cookie, they'd like them, but they need people to go and buy them in the first place. So in the ad, they say they have the "best tasting chocolate chip cookie in the world".

People go out and buy a package of the cookies after seeing the ad and find that it is not a chocolate chip cookie, but a sugar cookie. That's false advertising and while the sugar cookie might be good, it's not what the people wanted.

In the same line of thinking, you shouldn't be able to just make stuff up and put it into a political ad. If I was running for political office, I don't think I should be able to go on television and say, "My opponent is for giving control of the United States Government back to the British Monarchy, is actually an alien from a distant galaxy, killed Jimmy Hoffa, and thinks that we should destroy the Statue of Liberty".

Yes, that is "Freedom of Speech" but it's also blatant lies so I could win the election. Just because I have more money than my opponent, I should be able to dominate the air waves with nothing but lies?

I think we need to have regulation of political commercials. I think they need to be TOTALLY factual, NOT misleading, and actually be focussed on the ISSUES.

I totally expect that by the end of this election, both sides will be saying that Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda want the other side to be elected.

There should be some kind of penalty for airing a deliberately false or misleading ad, such as not being allowed to run political ads on television for a certain length of time (maybe a few days or a week).

Then, you'd HAVE to make sure your ads are truthful. You'd HAVE to make sure that you knew what was true before airing a commerical. I would like to see something like this implemented because too many people are getting impressions of both Bush and Kerry that are FALSE, and that's what is truly threatening our democracy.

Hmmm, not disputing you, but I have never heard of MoveOn.org before this campaign...

Probably don't run in those circles.

Actually I work in law enforcement. I am not connected to Boeing or the so-called "military industrial complex." I am a Bush supporter but have never contributed to or volunteered for any political campaign. But I do take our nation's security very seriously and that is why I support President Bush.

Wow! How clever you are...

Spoken like a true liberal Democrat. Your only interest is power and exercising your "perceived" control over the masses.

OK keep cool, remember it's just politic. The most active posters here, are certainly not the ones who will changer their opinions. So there is no need to become angry 8). Keep cool, take a beer, hear your favorite song, and relax.

the simple answer is to do away with every one in both parties, fire everyone from the top office holder to the loliest inturn, bring true conservatives into the republican party andtrue libs into the dem party, and as for nader, all 5 voters dont ammount to much...

Takeing the money out of polotics is a bad idea, it limits free speach, but then again, once you get to a seat of power in this country the power goes right to your head and the constitution in your mind is little more than a speed bump.

The one thing left out of CFR was the change needed to the inscription on the statue of liberty, to "If you arent a senator, congressman or president, then know your roll and shut your mouth!"

What an odd rejoinder.

TV ads? Free speech? I don't know. We already limit nudity, profanity and a whole bunch of other things on TV. To say TV is protected by the 1st Amendment just don't hold water to me. While I'm in favor of porn at 9 AM on Saturday morning on all regular free channels, as long as we're not going to allow that then I think we can also justify limiting political ads.

I'll repeat what I just said.

I'm in favor of porn 'n eggs on Sunday mornings too, but that's been limited. I think that's wrong. But, if we're going to limit speech on TV, then we're going to limit speech on TV. TV is a closed medium. It's completely controlled by the FCC. That alone is wrong. But until we're willing to change that, then feel free to close it completely.

Closing TV off and saying that's a violation of the 1st Amendment is like saying not allowing me to print what I want to print in a book you're publishing is a violation of the 1st Amendment. I don't have power over your publications.

McCain/Feingold is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction.

"OMG NOT PERFETC? THRWO BABY WIT BATHWAETR! AM I RITE?"

We need publicly funded elections and bans on any ads mentioning candidates by name 60 days before any election.

We need a proper debate system with well-trained and non-celebrity moderators and commitments from major networks to run the debates as a public service.

We need unlimited contributions and full disclosure. Nothing more.

Nick

Because television advertising greatly favors rich candidates/parties. But you like it that way, don't you?

Says the man who supports the Democrat who raised $233 million.

Says the man who supports the Democrat that is using money and legal maneuvers to keep Nader off the ballot.

Says the man who supports the Democrat who loaned his own campaign millions to defeat better candidates.

Don't be hypocritical. You accuse Scott of something when your own candidate and party have found every way possible to toss as much money as possible into the process.

Any campaign finance limits restrict the candidates to either rich and self financed, or incumbents or those endorsed by incumbents via their long chains of donors.

A candidate with $100,000 and several similar donors could put up a pretty good camapaign. He or she could raise a million pretty easily which would cover almost any state race and even most Congressional races. (house not senate)

But instead that donor has to go get 500,000 people to commit that money to them via $2000 donations. Again this isn't so hard to do when you have already been elected and can send your constituents free advertising all the time. But it is hard to catch the attention of that many people right off.

The other thing is everyone complains about the ridiculous amount of fund raising going on all the time. Well you have to do that when you need the attention of 500,000 people to give you money, (not pay attention to or vote their interests) instead of just getting a few people to write larger checks and be done with it.

Of course the small donations definately help and would likely still be the largest sources of money. But the reality is that a lot of people can't even get out of the gate because the two choices right now are self-financed or those who know how to contact 500k to a million people who all want to hand you cash even though they don't even know who you are.

Nick

Would you like to compare donation levels between the parties to non-presidential campaigns and candidates?

Of course it favors parties and candidates supported by the rich. Don't be dumb to suggest otherwise.

Ok, lets go all of the way and just abolish the first amendment too, that sure would help poloticians in a big way, aw hell the whole bill of rights is out dated, lets do away with them all...eccept the fifth...gotta protect the poloticians....

You can compare whatever you would like. Another little point to take note of. If Kerry and wife take office, they will be the richest president and first lady ever to have held the office. Kerry would be alone but in addition Heinz and the various assets she controls are worth almost a billion dollars.

Talk about your conflict of interests...

Nick

Actually, he would be third richest, and only if you include his wife's money.

Putting the Kerry/Heinz fortune at 525 million. Which I guess is "almost a billion dollars" if you close your left eye.

Moreover, continue to bear in mind that Theresa Kerry has no say whatsoever in the doings of the Heinz corporation, an entirely separate entity whose assets have nothing to do with hers.

Ah, but what's half a billion dollars among among bogus talking points?

You show your ignorance of assets among this class. The networth of a fortune as vast as that can fluctuate millions of dollars a day.

My source quotes the LA Times via The Weekly Standard.

Weekly Standard


Because such assets can range so much in their worth, even Kerry's own diclosure accounts for this.

Kerry Disclosure

Kerry's own number...$198,794,683 - $839,038,000

Nick

Wow, that certainly is a fluctuating portfolio--so we can't pin down net worth any closer than a factor of four? Must make tax time a bitch.

Oh, by the way, you are aware that Kerry and Heinz have a pre-nup that keep her assets separate?

And that your own figures above still contradict your original claim?

Your pitting the weekly standard vs Forbes? Fluctuates millions of dollars in a day? Ok millions I can believe--Hundreds of millions--NO.

I see you've found a new way to attack (right in line with the talking points) while never one addressing real issues. Way to go.

Hahahaha, Kerry's own numbers, from his own financial disclosure fluctuate by a factor of four, but obviously it must be me and my evil conservative agenda that makes him do that. Pathetic. Cry about something that comes from a source other than Kerry himself if you want to discredit the fact that he is very wealthy.

As for my original claim, I showed the source that mentioned it and also mentioned a much larger number. The LA Times article is no longer available because they archive after a few days and force you to pay to get the articles.

But Adda you really show how little you know about the finances of the wealthy. I could put everything I own in a trust. I would OWN nothing, but I would control a trust that owns plenty.

But all this is besides the point. The reality is that Tonton suggested that Scott didn't want campaign reform because it would move favor away from the rich. So Tonton can discredit Scott by claiming he seeks the interests of the rich.

No matter what number you want to come up with, Kerry is worth more than Cheney, Bush and Edwards COMBINED, even with the lowball figure. Don't sit there and complain that Republicans are only seeking the interests of the rich when the Democrats are running a couple of limo liberals who are worth hundreds of millions.

You can't rail against the rich when you ARE not only the rich, but the among the richest of the rich.

Nick

I'm not sure what the point of this derailment is. It's not how rich you are, it's your attitude towards it.

Some folks in government today seem to have the attitude that they're rich because god loves them, and it's their holy duty to make themselves (and those like them) richer at the public's expense. Many other folks with several orders of magnitude on the Bush/Cheneys of the world - Wm. Gates Sr, Soros, Turner, and Buffet spring to mind - believe that they're fortunate to have been able to amass such wealth, and that in a just society, anyone can be so fortunate. Odd that so many multi-billionaires came out against the Bush tax cuts, and against repealing the estate tax. The former because they didn't need it (and said so), the latter because even some would-be upper-caste members don't like the idea of our society devolving into a stratified caste system.

Ah, but if the point of the derailment was that Kerry can just throw a bunch of his wife's money into the race - um, no. $2000 is all she gets to spend of her hundreds of millions (although she could, if she wished, bankroll a 527, I suppose). According to TFForbesA, the rules were different in the first JFK's time, when his family could and did freely spend their own billion-dollar fortune on his campaigns. But the rules have changed, which is why this JFK had to mortage his house a few months ago.

Nick,

You're proving Tonton's point. Because Kerry was rich he was able to win the primary. We're AGAINST that.

Kerry is asking for weekly debates with Bush. That should undermine any sketchy advertising...if Bush accepts.

Hey was rich enough to self-finance until the donations started coming in since they have to come in such small amounts.

Tell me bunge, if say Soros, had wanted Dean to win, saw what Kerry had done and simply had been able to give Dean a five million dollar shot like Kerry gave him, do you think we would have the outcome we have now?

The point is that the rich can intervene for themselves but not for others. That should change since you're not going to get rid of the rich.

Can you name an attempt at finance reform that has actually led to lower spending for campaigns? All it does it make more people lie and break the law.

Nick

Just a quick question: why do we care how much THK is worth?