McCain, allies make new bid to drive big money from politics

[Liberty Belle]

McCain, allies make new bid to drive big money from politics

SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer


(02-02) 12:39 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

Sen. John McCain and others pushing for tougher campaign finance rules won a surprising ally Wednesday as they announced a renewed effort to block partisan interest groups from spending millions of dollars in big donations in congressional and presidential races.

Sen. Trent Lott, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, said he voted against sweeping campaign fund-raising restrictions won by McCain, Sen. Russ Feingold and others in 2002 but now agrees with the law's supporters that further legislation is needed to stop groups from circumventing the new rules...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2005/02/02/national1312EST0597.DTL

I don't like this. McCain wants to cut off 527 groups (like MoveOn) and wealthy individuals from running their own ads, but meanwhile the corporations still get to have politicians from both parties lined up to worship at the corporate feeding trough. Until we get the big companies out of the business of buying elections, I'd rather see the 527s (good and bad) stay in the game, as they are the one way we the people can make our voices heard.

[aquart]

1. McCain is not now and never has been our friend.

Time to notice.

[saracat]

3. Yup.

And he is MY senator. GAG.

[wuushew]

8. Is Feingold not our friend now either?

he is a co-sponsor of the bill. Let's not pretend maverick McCain is doing this all by himself.

[aquart]

13. I didn't say one word about Feingold.

My comment was about McCain.

[deacon]

2. if lott is for it, it has to be a bad idea n/t

[AlCzervik]

4. what a fucker he's turned out to be

I actually worked on his campaign in 99 and felt bad for him after Bush sent out the hounds on him.

[Pirate Smile]

6. My feelings also.

[Sabriel]

5. Uh huhhhh.....

Right.

[spotbird]

7. What they will succeed in doing is

to drive left wing money from politics.

How people can’t see through McCain is beyond me. McCain is not a maverick; he is the most cleverly manipulative Republican of them all.

By pretending to have problems with the WH or the majority but ultimately supporting them McCain gives peace of mind to middle of the road Republicans and others. Those people who have issues with the policies look to McCain’s support as a signal that the policy couldn't’t be all that bad. It is an ingenious ruse, and it works flawlessly.

If McCain had a conscience he’d vote against torture, there will be none of that. McCain is a true coward, with no loyalty to his country.

[bemildred]

9. Right, and the Easter Bunny leaves painted eggs on your lawn. nt

[wheresthemind]

10. GOOD FOR MCCAIN and FEINGOLD!

I wish the Swift Boat Bastards would have had to abide by these:

"* Would have to register with the Federal Election Commission as political action committees, disclose details on their fund raising and spending, and abide by the same contribution and spending limits as other PACs. That means they could only accept donations of up to $5,000 each from individuals or other PACs for their federal election activities, contributions known as hard money.

* Could accept up to $25,000 from each individual donor to help finance efforts that affect both federal and nonfederal candidates, such as get-out-the-vote drives or ads. They would be barred from accepting money from corporations or labor unions for such spending, and would have to cover at least half the cost with the smaller "hard money" contributions."

Move-on is already a PAC so seemingly this would not affect it... think... Moveonpac.org...

I would like to see all 527s obliterated, if a candidate wants to attack an opponent, make him do it himself and suffer the consequences if he is wrong. If every Swift Boat ad had been "Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04" they would have backfired big time.

[dandrhesse]

11. yeah, right that's why he is backing the Social Security fiasco about

to be announced by bush. I don't care what he says, he stumped for bush and has thus far shown no remorse or alterior motive, if he has one it had better come to light soon.

[librechik]

12. MoveOn is not a 527; it's a PAC.

I want them to OUTLAW CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS in all forms. Period. Even this crap is just a distraction from the real problem.

[imenja]

14. MoveOn had two organizations: a PAC and a 527

This law won't keep them from operating. It just changes the tax code and financing rules they operate under.

[imenja]

15. I don't see an exemption for corporations discussed in this article

Can you clarify your objection? Corporations are currently limited to the same restrictions as individuals in terms of direct contributions to candidates. It looks like this bill would prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from contributing more than $25,000 to PACs. I might remind you that the Swift Boat vets were also a 527. McCain-Feingold created a loop hole that the 527s emerged from. I don't see a problem in closing it. They can still organize and operate as PACs but can't be financed by a couple of wealthy individuals or corporations. People like Soros and Ken Lay can still buy individual air time to run TV ads.
I'd appreciate knowing more about what your objection is. There may be something I'm missing here.

[Liberty Belle]

16. Corporations circumvent that by

having all their executives donate individually. So if I understand this correctly, they would still be able to wield influence.

Meanwhile, liberal 527s that have sprouted up with those home-made commercials would no longer be able to get air time, and there aren't that many wealthy DEM individuals compared to all those rich Rethugs.

[imenja]

17. 527s are not just liberal

and I think it's important to look at the issue outside of the Republican, Democratic use of them. Dem's thought of the exemption first, but there is not question Republicans will be at least equal if not surpass liberal funded 527s by the 2006 election. When candidates are for sale to the highest bidder, it helps none of us. I don't think this reform looks bad, of course everything is in the details.
Bundling, I believe, should also be outlawed. So no individual or corporation could not present a group of contributions to a candidate as a way to wield influence. Limits should also be placed on inaugural donations.
Ultimately the only solution that can restore representative Democracy and remove our political system from the clutches of cleptocracy is public financing for campaigns. The Supreme Court has put up obstacles to that, but there are ways around legal rulings. In the meantime, I believe incremental campaign finance reform is important and should be supported.