McCain/Feingold was a mistake.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

I thought about the situation that we Dem's have right now.
John Kerry has very few dollars in the bank. DAS Reich wants to shut down Moveon and ACT. These advocacy groups are our only hope to compete with *. Even with them, John Kerry cannot directly attack Bush. The Rethugs have MILLIONS of dollars flowing in and we have only 10 Million or so.

Because of this, I have come to this conclusion:

John Breaux was right!!! I offer no apology for this statement. He said that if we pass McCain/Feingold we Democrats would be at a GREAT disadvantage.

If I were a member of congress, I would have voted against the Campaign Finance Reform bill.

The only solution to the problem is to have publically financed campaigns, until then, we Dems need all the soft money we can get.

[MercutioATC]

1. Ahhh, but we're stuck with it now...

MoveOn needs to forget about fighting this and figure out how to develop ads that meet the requirements of the law...and FAST!

It seems clear to me that the ads are in violation. Rather than fight it, we should be concentrating on getting our point across legally.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. True, but CFR is now our enemy!

:puke:

[MercutioATC]

5. That's sarcasm, right??

CFR is CFR and it does exactly what we wanted it to do (as far as it goes).
I posted this in another thread in reference to how we could make a statement and abide by the law:


"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."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

7. No Sarcasm on my part! I was sorry to see the Supreme Court....

uphold this Unconsitutional POS!

[MercutioATC]

9. Well, it IS what we asked for..we wanted to limit the effect of soft money

on elections. This law does that. Frankly, I don't see why we can't just work around it, but can you imagine the shit they'll throw at us if we fight it? An election year is NOT the time to ask to relax campaign finance laws...especially not for Democrats.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

10. If the FEC overrules the 527's, then what do you propose????

What I am saying is that if I were a member of congress I would have voted, NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

The playing field is already in favor of the Rethugs with the GD
media whoring (especially those "libruls" on cable) for Bush. Remember those 527's and the FEC must rule on them.

I had mixed feelings about CFR. I understood that we Dems would have a great challenge ahead of us if it passed and unforunatly it did.

The only fair system is to have Publically Financed Campaignes.

[MercutioATC]

12. Well, that's two issues....In order:

1) I propose that 527's (like MoveOn) abide by the law. There are plenty of messages we can send without mentioning Bush be name. None of those would be prohibited.

2) I think McCain-Fiengold has benefits and drawbacks for both parties, but I really do think that it represents what Dems asked for...a law that limits the effect of soft money on elections. Soft money used to be the tool of Republicans, which is why we fought it. Just because the tables have been turned this election is no excuse to cry "foul".

[MoonRiver]

16. Yeah, we can have people and images on ads talking about the

LAST THREE YEARS, and never mention the * name (which is in fact unmentionable). This can work for us.

[MercutioATC]

17. Exactly. That's why I don't understand the complaints.

We can make a perfectly good case without mentioning Bush by name. MoveOn was just stupid asking for "Bush in 30 seconds" spots. They could ask for "What went wrong?" or "This is not America" (a favorite of mine) and they'll get just as many submissions...and they'll be LEGAL.

They also need to streamline the selection process....we're running out of time.

[MoonRiver]

18. Absolutely. It's simple. So, let's get going.

I hope MoveOn knows what to do next. Just stop mentioning or picturing *, but focus on how good things were before 01/2001, and all the horror that has occurred since that point. Then, ask the question WHY? and leave it up to the viewer to decide. Could be really powerful.

[MercutioATC]

19. Actually, that lends itself to more emotional, nostalgic ads...

which make more impact than informational ads, anyway. Hell, I'm a cynic and I can get choked up over some of the ads I've seen...

[MoonRiver]

21. So, are you saying, go for it?

Inquiring minds and all.

[MercutioATC]

22. Absolutely. Hell, they've got submissions that fit the bill already...

(from another post)

"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."


I say run 'em.

[MoonRiver]

23. OK. So my next question is, will they do this?

I'm assuming that what is posted here is factual, i.e. that MoveOn and other 527 ads, which mention specific candidates, are illegal. Of course a court of law hasn't ruled, but if that's correct we have to be savvy and swift enough to correct and recenter. Hope that happens. I'll help if I can.

O8)

[MercutioATC]

24. I certainly hope so. Actually, I hope MoveOn bypasses the issue and

just starts running new ads. Why spand money fighting it when there's a completely viable "path of less resistance" to follow?

[MoonRiver]

25. So, I think we need to move on over to MoveOn and get some momentum.

Heck, they're about moving, so get it on already.

[MercutioATC]

26. I donated money until this issue presented itself.

I won't contribute for their legal fees to fight. I will continue to contribute if they change direction. Their call...

[tobius]

3. This realization is a bit late. Many, many people opposed this type of

reform on the right and the left. Who was pushing this? and now when it starts to hurt, the cries are everywhere- "wait a second, we didn't mean it!". People paid no attention to the arguments , all that happened was this simple---> if my side is for it it's good. The 527 response was planned at the same time to deal with enactment, the hypocrisy of those that "supported campaign finance reform" is so blatant it's almost embarrasing to point it out.

[fujiyama]

4. I came to the same conclusion...

a while back, and I too am unapologetic. This bill is crap, and I think the restrictions in it, do violate free speech. I now see why some senators (like Wellstone, bless him), were trying to insert poison pills to kill the damn thing.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

6. How did Wellstone try to kill it? Please Answer.

[Clyyyde]

8. RIGHT YOU ARE

John Breaux was right!!! I offer no apology for this statement. He said that if we pass McCain/Feingold we Democrats would be at a GREAT disadvantage.


So right!! Mcain and Fiengold were selling this as a great equalizer so now we have controlled speech and those stupid 527's. PHONY BS!!

[janx]

11. It isn't perfect. But I don't think it's a mistake.

It needs more work.

[jenk]

13. I agree

[PROGRESSIVE1]

14. Thank You for the support.

[littlejoe]

15. Yeah, you say that now.....

[MoonRiver]

20. We need to keep this debate alive, so we can find solutions

:kick: if necessary.