527's, Soft Money, Buying Elections
CNN
Associated Press
Pretty much the key point of both articles can be summed up here.
All the other stuff, coordination of campaign messages, ad buys and things of that nature, likely happen, but it will probably be impossible to prove on paper what anyone with any common sense can plainly see is happening. So if people want to argue that good luck since it will probably be to hard to prove unless someone seriously goofs or leaves their permissions set wrong on some files.
But the bigger and more easily resolved issue in my mind is the using of soft money to purchase attack ads. It has been clearly ruled out of bounds. It is obvious ads from Moveon.org and other such groups have been attacking and opposing Bush. It is also true that the soft money has come from millionaires in very large donations totaling millions of dollars. Shouldn't this be seen as an attempt of the rich to buy the election, or at very least a violation of the law by those lamenting the large amount of money in politics?
Thought and comments are welcome,
Nick
Associated Press
Pretty much the key point of both articles can be summed up here.
Quote:
In February, the FEC issued a ruling saying a communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" a federal candidate falls under the hard money rules.
The RNC charges that decision clearly puts the activities of the 527 groups against Bush out of bounds; the groups disagree, saying what they're doing is consistent with the FEC's ruling.
In February, the FEC issued a ruling saying a communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" a federal candidate falls under the hard money rules.
The RNC charges that decision clearly puts the activities of the 527 groups against Bush out of bounds; the groups disagree, saying what they're doing is consistent with the FEC's ruling.
All the other stuff, coordination of campaign messages, ad buys and things of that nature, likely happen, but it will probably be impossible to prove on paper what anyone with any common sense can plainly see is happening. So if people want to argue that good luck since it will probably be to hard to prove unless someone seriously goofs or leaves their permissions set wrong on some files.
But the bigger and more easily resolved issue in my mind is the using of soft money to purchase attack ads. It has been clearly ruled out of bounds. It is obvious ads from Moveon.org and other such groups have been attacking and opposing Bush. It is also true that the soft money has come from millionaires in very large donations totaling millions of dollars. Shouldn't this be seen as an attempt of the rich to buy the election, or at very least a violation of the law by those lamenting the large amount of money in politics?
Thought and comments are welcome,
Nick
Comments
There is no way to get big $$ out of the electoral process with both major parties relying on it. Also our electoral system is structured so that independents or third parties cannot get a look in. It is a vicious circle, as regards prospect of change towards something more fair and representative. Big business has always owned both the republican and democratic parties. The republicrats will fight tooth and nail to prevent any change....and with republicrats holding (virtually) all the polticical cards....
Even Ross Perot, with his billions in 1992 failed to win a single seat in either Congress or the Senate with his Reform Party, despite garnering 19% of the vote.
Originally posted by shetline
As long as Fox News and Premiere Radio Networks are put in the same category as MoveOn.org, that'll be fine with me.
Oh please... and I suppose you think the NYT is non-partisan...
The difference with all the above being that they aren't sporting deliberate TV ads to sway voters. Opinion editorials, discussion shows and the like are a bit different than that. As much as I feel NYT is biased I still wouldn't lump them in with MoveOn.
All I can say is that it is evident that trumpt was watching fox news this morning...
Originally posted by billybobsky
I certainly wouldn't lump the NYT with Fox News either.
All I can say is that it is evident that trumpt was watching fox news this morning...
I watch Fox "News" on occasions. It is pretty much indistiguishable from a continuous party political ad on behalf of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. It is billions of dollars worth of free advertising for the conservative viewpoint.
Originally posted by sammi jo
I watch Fox "News" on occasions. It is pretty much indistiguishable from a continuous party political ad on behalf of the Republican Party and the Bush Administration. It is billions of dollars worth of free advertising for the conservative viewpoint.
Just as the front page of every liberal leaning newspaper in the country is for the liberal viewpoint. But both of these are different from MoveOn.org.
foxnews is conservative.
nytimes is in between.
Repeat ad nauseum
SJO you may want to look into how ?small contributions? are ?bundled? to circumvent the law.
Originally posted by billybobsky
salon.com is liberal. foxnews is conservative. nytimes is in between. Repeat ad nauseum
Well my point is, regardless of how you slice them up, they are all different from something like MoveOn.org. Fine line in some cases, but different.
Originally posted by billybobsky
nytimes is in between.
I respectfully disagree. The Times leans conservative.
I really don't see a problem with these 527's. The biggest ones are conservatively oriented. Less out spoken perhaps but conservative. Basically, the point is that both political sides take advantage of them.
These groups don't have the same direct ties to a canidate as direct contributers do. There is some minimal protection from "buying" elections in that way. As I said to a lab mate of mine earlier, if I was a billionaire who happened to think the nation was going in the wrong direction, why shouldn't I be allowed to use my money as I see fit by paying for ads etc.
True campaign finance reform would involve mandated caps for all canidates...
Originally posted by midwinter
I respectfully disagree. The Times leans conservative.
i just said that it was in between...
Originally posted by billybobsky
i just said that it was in between...
I know. I'm not trying to pick a fight or derail this really interesting thread (kudos, Nick!). I just wanted to point out that the Times is often, at best, described as centrist or, at worst, as liberal. There's an argument to be made (Eric Alterman does it) that it is in fact pretty conservative. Sure, they have Dowd and Friedman, but after that, it's a raft of pretty conservative commentators. Several Times reporters show their conservative stripes from time to time.
Anyway. Don't mind me. Move on along everyone. There aren't the droids you're looking for.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by dviant
Oh please... and I suppose you think the NYT is non-partisan...
The expressed purpose of Fox News is to be a platform for conservative viewpoints.
All I can say is that it is evident that trumpt was watching fox news this morning...
....billybobsky
I don't watch any cable news, be it Fox, CNN or whatever. I'm lucky if I watch 3 hours of TV per week. No matter what viewpoint the news or the network broadcasting it. The rate of information being given is far to slow for my patience. I can get the same information in 5 minutes on the web.
But of course the REAL question is... how would you know what was on Fox News this morning Billy?
Now on to this...
ok...
I really don't see a problem with these 527's. The biggest ones are conservatively oriented. Less out spoken perhaps but conservative. Basically, the point is that both political sides take advantage of them.
These groups don't have the same direct ties to a canidate as direct contributers do. There is some minimal protection from "buying" elections in that way. As I said to a lab mate of mine earlier, if I was a billionaire who happened to think the nation was going in the wrong direction, why shouldn't I be allowed to use my money as I see fit by paying for ads etc.
True campaign finance reform would involve mandated caps for all canidates...
No one said there was a problem wit 527's. The problem is with breaking the law. If a billionaire wants to give millions to advocate on behalf of an issue, that should all be good and well. However there is a law saying both 527's and political parties cannot use soft money to advertise on behalf of candidates or against candidates, and then someone starts breaking the law, that isn't good.
As for things and how they lean...
FoxNews.. leans Conservative in so far as they will also broadcast instead of killing stories about politically correct targets.
CNN... leans liberal
NY Times... leans liberal as well
LA Times... very liberal
Orange County Register... lean conservative
Now back to the topic!
Nick
I get a kick out of fox every once in a while. its like a bad illogical pun...
the smirks are fantastic and it is obvious that the people whose faces they are on think they are very smart for making an illogical and unreasoned argument that befuddles the knock-around liberal...
i happen to like the underdog in most of those fights anyway...
as for proving that the current 527's are campaigning against a cannidate -- if you make a stand against the war, is that a stand against bush? if you make a stand against the excess spending of the country, is that a stand against bush? if you make a stand against reduction in environmental protection, worsening of american schools, systematic misleading of the american people, is that a stand against bush? if so, then what is the point of having these 527's at all?
Who paid for them? Who coordinated them?
If you think those organizations aren't funded and coordinately in absolutely the same manner as MoveOn.org than you're fooling yourself.
Basically, Trumptman's argument is that he wants Democrats financially crippled while Republicans SPEND SPEND SPEND. It's obvious to everyone who follows politics and writes about it in the media that there's a HUGE money imbalance during this election. So when Racicot and Gillespie cry fowl about MoveOn...well...I just laugh at the ridiculousness.
The hypocrisy astounds!
According the article, MoveOn and Media Fund arent' the only ones named in the suit.
Others named in the complaint include the pro-Democratic groups America Coming Together, America Votes, Voices for Working Families and Moving America Forward; major donors, including Soros, who has pledged millions to anti-Bush soft money efforts; and leaders of the groups, including New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, a founder of Moving America Forward and chairman of the Democratic National Convention.
As you can clearly see the Republicans are pretty much demanding that NO ONE can EVER help a Democrat out. They themselves can do whatever they want. But Democrats raising money to help democrats...THE OUTRAGE!
Originally posted by billybobsky
*hangs head in shame*
I get a kick out of fox every once in a while. its like a bad illogical pun...
the smirks are fantastic and it is obvious that the people whose faces they are on think they are very smart for making an illogical and unreasoned argument that befuddles the knock-around liberal...
i happen to like the underdog in most of those fights anyway...
as for proving that the current 527's are campaigning against a cannidate -- if you make a stand against the war, is that a stand against bush? if you make a stand against the excess spending of the country, is that a stand against bush? if you make a stand against reduction in environmental protection, worsening of american schools, systematic misleading of the american people, is that a stand against bush? if so, then what is the point of having these 527's at all?
Good point billy,
Those would be considered issue ads. These 527's can run those all day and night and can even do so with soft money. If they mention or address a candidate though, then they have to be funded with hard money. ($2000 limit per person donating)
So if someone wanted to make an ad claiming that Big Oil (even listing names like Haliburton, etc.) was benefiting from the attack on Iraq at the expense of U.S. soldiers dying, etc. It would be clear who's side they are supporting ideologically, but there would be nothing wrong with the ads. Those ads are consided free speech and not subject to limits.
However if the ads mention Bush, Kerry or specifically advocate for or against a candidate, those are subject to campaign limitations.
The real issue is organizations like MoveOn.org have taken millions and now are running ads advocating against and for candidates when they should be running issue ads.
We all know about those ads because they solicited for them under the bushin30seconds.org website. Those ads cannot be paid for with soft money donations. It is against the law.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
Here in California I've been watching A LOT of anti-Kerry ads on TV lately. They're not Bush sactioned ads. So....
Who paid for them? Who coordinated them?
If you think those organizations aren't funded and coordinately in absolutely the same manner as MoveOn.org than you're fooling yourself.
Basically, Trumptman's argument is that he wants Democrats financially crippled while Republicans SPEND SPEND SPEND. It's obvious to everyone who follows politics and writes about it in the media that there's a HUGE money imbalance during this election. So when Racicot and Gillespie cry fowl about MoveOn...well...I just laugh at the ridiculousness.
The hypocrisy astounds!
According the article, MoveOn and Media Fund arent' the only ones named in the suit.
As you can clearly see the Republicans are pretty much demanding that NO ONE can EVER help a Democrat out. They themselves can do whatever they want. But Democrats raising money to help democrats...THE OUTRAGE!
I don't want anyone silenced. My campaign spending mantra is no limits, no timelines, full disclosure. I wouldn't even have the whole hard/soft money nonsense at all. I think almost all fund raising reform is nonsense that seeks to keep the incumbent in office regardless of party.
George Will has articulated the nonsense that is campaign finance reform. However I also do not want one voice to have the ability to duck the law while the other must obey it.
If you know of any Republican groups that you think are spending soft money in the same manner as moveon.org, then name them and we can all look at it, discuss and debate if it is right. But don't just question the poster (me), spread a unsubstanciated, anecdotal story (I see dead people, and Kerry ads) and then point say breaking the law is okay.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't want anyone silenced.
The ban on smoking ads was successful. I would support a ban on TV ads for politics as well.