GOP seeking to end ban on some donation limits

[Leo The Cleo]

http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2009/02/gop-seeking-to-end-ban-on-some-donation-limits

The Republican National Committee is suing to overturn part of a ban on unlimited contributions passed by Congress in 2002 and upheld by the Supreme Court a year later.

The suit is against the Federal Elections Commission, which enforces the law, but the Democratic National Committee and House Democrats campaign chief Rep. Chris Van Hollen have asked the court to let them defend the law as well. The GOP is fighting to keep the Democrats out of the courtroom dispute.

The party positions are ironic, given how the law got its start. The law, known as McCain-Feingold after the senators who sponsored it, restricts donations by individuals to $28,500 per year to the political parties and prohibits the parties from accepting any corporate or labor union contributions.

Before the law was enacted, the two parties were raising hundreds of millions in soft money, with rich individuals, businesses and unions giving a million or more. Experts originally thought that Democrats had the most to lose under the ban since the Democrats relied more heavily on those contributions.

But Obama's presidential campaign raised record amounts of money under the limits, with nearly 4 million donors giving about $750 million to his effort.

A week after Obama won the election, the Republican National Committee filed suit, even though its candidate for president, John McCain, was one of the authors of the soft-money ban, and Republican President George W. Bush had signed it into law.

http://www.topix.net/content/ap/2009/02/gop-seeking-to-end-ban-on-some-donation-limits

[firedupdem]

1. They are so lost...they don't know from which angle to fight. n/t

[tkmorris]

2. Let me think...

NO!

Next question?

[Leo The Cleo]

3. It's a Great Idea

If this can go through, then I big business can have fewer stumbling blocks to buying congress. Wouldn't that be great? And it would be even sweeter this time, because they could do it with bailout money.

[Hellataz]

4. They are still fuming at how Obama beat them in fundraising while sticking to these limits

The GOP will never have the type of base that is willing to fork over their hard earned cash to a campaign, they rely on a handful of businessmen and corporations to just give then a few large checks to cover it all. With these limits in place, they are cut off from that income source and have to rely on their "winning personalities" to generate campaign contributions. At this thought, they know they are screwed. But they also know that without buckets of money to help them rig, cheat and steal elections, they wont have a chance in 2021.

This is just another stunt in a long list of stunts the GOP with be preoccupied with for the next 4 years. For them it will be all about planning for the election and trying to make Obama look bad while trying to smack down every good thing he proposes.

[WinkyDink]

5. Sounds Rovian, trying to sneak this past the public now.

[ericgtr]

6. I take it that they also support the fairness doctrine then?

Because this is no different. McCain couldn't raise the amount Obama could so he "chose" to opt in. This is bending the rules because they are unable to make it on their own. Complete and utter hypocrisy.

[Enthusiast]

7. Campaign funding laws

should be strengthened. That is all.

[BR_Parkway]

8. Wish they'd pass a law that all in Congress had to wear patches like NASCAR

does - the bigger the donation, the bigger the sponsorship patch on the outfit.

Would make watching CSpan more entertaining when everyone could see things like Sen Toyota arguing against money to help out US automakers/workers.