must read

[historian]

snip

In early March, the Republican National Committee sent threatening letters to 250 television stations, urging them not to run MoveOn.org's ads. This past week, the Bush campaigned joined party operatives in an attempt to alter the fine print of election law to ban big donations to groups like MoveOn.org and other Democratic activist groups.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10089

[H2O Man]

1. darkness fears light

please donate to MoveOn.org to carry on the good fight!

[MercutioATC]

2. My interpretation is that there's no "Republican bias" here..it's the law.

McCain-Fiengold stated that "soft money" donations cannot be used to campaign for or against any particular candidate. MoveOn is funded by "soft money". MoveOn is running ads specifically against Bush. This does violate campaign finance law, as I read it.

I like the MoveOn ads, but they seem to violate the law...hell, wasn't it US who wanted campaign finance reform? Shouldn't we at least abide by it now that we have it?

[historian]

3. we cant afford to

However law abiding we might try to be, the worse the rebukes will be. It is essential to world peace and perhaps for the very existence of thisplanet that we rid ourselves of bush

[MercutioATC]

6. If we can't abide by a law we worked for, we're no better than them.

I can't believe that we can't develop ads that meet the requirements and still have the ability to reach people.

We got a TON of great ads from average people when MoveOn ran their "Bush in 30 seconds" campaign. The problem is that they called it "BUSH in 30 seconds". MoveOn should call for ads again, making it very clear that NO candidate (Bush included) can be mentioned in the ad. They'd get as meny responses as before...and the resulting ads would be legal.

It's time for us to step up to the plate and follow the law, especially since WE asked for it. I think we'll get an even better crop of ads.


as a postscript:

Some of the submitted ads already meet the requirement. I remember one featuring a man of Middle Eastern descent telling of the social injustices in his country. At the end of the spot he asks "Why should you care what happens in my country?" The camera pans to show the background as the N.Y.C. skyline and the Statue of Liberty, and he says "Because my country is the United States of America."

I thought that as had real impact and it didn't mention any candidate specifically.

[Cleita]

4. This wasn't the campaign finance reform we wanted.

Apparently we were screwed by the right again.

"Beware Republicans bearing gifts."

We need a system that gives candidates public funds to run their campaigns within certain rules and parameters.

[MercutioATC]

5. Actually, yes it was. We wanted to limit the effect of soft money on

elections. This law does that.

Granted, we're suffering from buyer's remorse now, but this IS what we asked for.

[H2O Man]

8. Other people view it differently than you.

It will likely end up a court battle. I have heard some attorneys make a case that is totally opposite of yours. You may be right, I'm not trying to say it's one way or the other. But I think people can be honest, sincere, informed, and have a view different than yours.

[MercutioATC]

9. Fair enough. Granted, it's MY view...

I think it bears merit, but there's always another arguement...

peace

[buycitgo]

7. "fine print?" I love it......"loopholes?" that's what the media call it.

WTF is with this "fine print" BS?

is that the same kind of "fine print" that got Ollie North off for his myriad crimes against the state?

the same "fine print" that gets other criminals off on appeal?

the same "fine print" that appends our own constitution in that communist-inspired Bill of Rights?

is the section of the 527 legislation that allows the dems to do what they do written in size 6 font, where the rest is in 12, or what?

give me a break...it's either in there or not.

here's the crux of the matter, summarized by Robert Kuttner:

Now, however, the Republicans on the FEC are trying to make it illegal for 527s -- and even for ordinary nonprofits -- to take positions on public issues that explicitly or implicitly criticize the president. The proposed ruling would prohibit the use of tax-exempt money that "promotes, supports, attacks, or opposes" any candidate for federal office, including comments on a candidate's record or proposed policies .

If this is upheld, not only would the new liberal 527s be out of business, but the exemplary work of, say, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which has been a truth squad on Bush's budget misrepresentations, would be deemed partisan and illegal. Even the Red Cross could be barred from criticizing or supporting legislation on the blood supply if it incidentally supported or criticized a Bush policy.

This stance, mind you, comes after the viciously partisan "Arkansas Project," aimed at destroying Bill Clinton at all costs, was financed mainly by tax-exempt foundation money -- without the FEC saying a word.

For the three decades of its existence, the FEC has been an utterly toothless watchdog. Now, suddenly, it has come to life in an effort to widen the right's financial advantage and strangle Bush's critics. Last month, I wrote an article headlined "America as a One-Party State" on all the ways the right is seeking to make the Republican regime permanent. Here's yet another one. The hits keep on coming.


he also makes the point that what they're doing NOW is EXPRESSLY legal, not some bit of "fine print," or "loophole" that's currently being VIOLATED. the pugs are pressing for a new RULING that will make this illegal.....but it's not now. and the REPUBLICAN head of the FEC has gone on record (I heard them discussing this on NPR last week) that he currently favors the present rules.

in Kuttner's words:
McCain-Feingold explicitly permits unlimited independent expenditures for voter-registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, as well as for organizing drives on behalf of policies or candidates, as long as those efforts are not organizationally coordinated with a candidate's campaign. To ban such activities, Congress and the courts reasoned, would be to deny citizens free speech.

http://www.prospect.org/print/V15/3/kuttner-r.html

so it's perfectly legal to do what they do. pugs would have to PROVE conclusive ties to the DNC. Let em try, and until they CHANGE the RULES, they can suck on it and SUCK HARD!

Remember Willie Horton? sauce for the goose, and all that.