Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is my first post on Watchblog. Please go easy on me if I didn’t express myself clearly. I’ll get better, I promise!

The campaign finance law does not preclude outside groups from having their say. The only thing they can’t do is say the candidate’s name. They can, however, make very, very unsublte suggestions as to who you should vote for. Liberal organizations such as MoveOn.org have shown that, and it won’t be long before the conservatives catch on.

Jason, it is a choice of the lesser of two evils. Choice one: limit unequal influence in Wa.D.C. and prevent the U.S. from reaching its destination toward oligarchic aristocracy where oligopolies legislate with only one interest, profit. Choice two: define money as speech and they with the most money get the most and loudest speech in Wa.D.C., drowning out the voices of the majority of unaffiliated hard working Americans.

I join you in urging voters to contact their representatives and adamantly tell them you oppose Bartlett’s bill (HR 3801) and you insist on campaign finance reform law being enforced and protected as the will of the majority of Americans had intended.

It is an excellent first post, Jason. Welcome to the fray! :-)

I came across an interesting article about charities integrating with political organizations from the LA Times. I think Campaign Finance Reforms should also take a look at charitable organizations, particular those which sponsor political organizations. Should a charity be allowed to retain its tax exemption status having endorsed a particular political candidate or party? Here’s the article in its entirety:

The Supreme Court had no illusions in December about the difficulties facing the new campaign-finance reform law when it upheld the law’s ban on so-called soft money, unlimited donations to political parties and other groups. “Money, like water, will always find an outlet,” wrote justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor. “What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day.” Because of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), that day has arrived.

DeLay has made plans to use a nonprofit, tax-exempt charitable foundation created by him and operated by his daughter and several of his associates to fund political events at the Republican National Convention over Labor Day weekend. DeLay weakened House ethics rules last year, ending bans on free trips to and lodging at charity events where lawmakers mingle with lobbyists and businesspeople. His latest maneuver could free both political parties to use captive charitable organizations as vehicles for off-the-books influence peddling.

The brochure for DeLay’s charity, Celebrations for Children Inc., openly solicits funds to be used to pay for a luxury hospitality suite for big donors, a yacht cruise, VIP tickets to Broadway shows, a golf tournament and a late-night party. For $500,000, a donor gets a private dinner before and after the convention with DeLay and colleagues as well as high-level staffers. These are functions for which political soft money was used during the 2000 conventions.

DeLay certainly leaves the impression of trading influence for money. The donations are even tax-deductible beyond the amount used by the charity for actual event costs. But it’s not a tax deduction that lobbyists will be chasing. It’s private access to power.

Such grimy use of a children’s charity will ring bells in Los Angeles. In 1997, then-City Councilman Richard Alatorre was hauled before the city Ethics Commission in connection with two charities that he helped create and that were administered by his wife. Alatorre solicited large donations for the charities from companies that did business with the city. It smelled, and Alatorre lost his foothold in politics.

The Internal Revenue Service will eventually determine whether DeLay’s charity meets the federal requirement that nonprofits refrain from partisan political conduct. The House Ethics Committee, however, should not wait for a ruling on the letter of the law. For five years, an unofficial truce has existed between Republicans and Democrats who tired of mutual destruction stemming from ethics charges after House speakers Jim Wright (D-Texas) and Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) had to resign. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Ethics Committee Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and ranking Democrat Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) should issue an advisory opinion to their colleagues on the ethics and legality of DeLay’s use of his charity.

DeLay has worked hard and honorably to help disadvantaged children in the past. Now, unfortunately, he is engaged in a political arms race that will only hurt the reputations of legitimate charities.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-ed-delay18feb18,1,4539306.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

I thought these laws were always there, I recall the Christian Coalition some years back (prior to the reform) catching quite a bit of heat advocating a candidate publically. Are these just new ameliorations to existing laws?

I’m sure there is someone who knows more on this topic around here.

That is precisely why campaign finance reform as passed was called a down payment on reform, and not true reform of campaign financing. Actually, though, it was the only way to proceed. True campaign finance reform which restored the voice of voters to an equal decibel level with special interests would have been shot down by the courts. This incremental approach which garners majority electorate support at each stage, will have a far better chance of establishing progressive and incremental court precedents, each building on the one before.

There is still hope for true campaign finance reform, but only if it can remain a high priority issue for the media and the public at large. A perpetual state of war against terrorism is one sure way to kill the hope for campaign finance reform if our leadership can continue to use it for maximum fear value. All other issues are subjugated to assuaging fear.

No matter how it is tried, one cannot disconnect money from the expression of speech. Laws which take no account of reality are merely desparate wishes.

Why not decree that no money can be spent on any campaign whatsoever. All volunteers. All word of mouth. No media buys, no websites, no advertising. In short, make voter participation the only campaign resource!

The whole reason for so-called campaign finance reform was to limit corruption. But the people pushing reform had no hard evidence of quid pro quo actually happening. The whole thing is a smoke screen for the voters and to protect their own jobs.

I have to say, I am amazed that elected politicians, who have the most to gain due to their incumbant advantage from limiting ways in which they can be critized during election years. To me, its kind of scary how we will sacrifice our liberties in order to get the ends we want. Whether its the right giving up civil liberties to fight terrorism, or the left giving up free speach to fight government corruption by money.

Hey, I hate big money’s effect on politics as much as anyone. Lets not pretend its all big business oligopolies or whatever that use their money to control Washington. I have been sicked as I watched issues like destruction of tort reform by the money of the trial lawyer, the constant increases of medicare at the AARP’s demand, rationale environmental measures blocked by dems funded by the special interest groups like the Sierra club, women’s special interest groups like NOW putting money in the pockets of dems to fight any measures meant to stop anythign in relation to abortion (did you know NOW actually “convinced” some congressmen to try to block a measure that would protect children who were born after botched abortions, which several judges had ruled were “not protected” and could thus be killed after birth)… my point in bringing up this left-wing special interest groups, who i bet most of you campaign finance people support, is to recall the important lessons our framers meant to teach us about how to deal with these sorts of issues. The influence of money and faction is not a new thing- it was what Madison was concerned about in Federalist 10. He talked about possible solutions to the problem, and campaing finance reform, which basically limits free speach he properly said was a solution in which the cure was worse than the illness. The first ammendment is not up for a balancing test- people have the freedom of speach without prior restraint. It is very easy to pass laws that limit what people can say against elected officials, its much harder to get those laws repealed….

that first sentence should read:

“I have to say, I am amazed that elected politicians, who have the most to gain due to their incumbant advantage from limiting ways in which they can be critized during election years convinced the majority of voters that it was a good idea to make such critism even more difficult, insuring the alread obscene re-election rate for congressmen and Senators will go even higher”

They made us attend a Telecom policy class as part of my major, so I remember this:

Free Speech does not enjoy absolute protection. There are regulations in modern society for time place and manner.

On that basis, I would not call this bill anti-free speech. We can still contribute to candidates, and all political parties can recieve donations. None are denied them. The Campaign finance reform bill does not take away first amendment rights of people, it merely shapes the manner in which they are allowed to express it. It is no different than an obscenity law, a public disturbance law, or any other law designed to place rational limits on public expression.

Besides, shouldn’t donors act more individually? If we want a candidate to act in our interests, should they do so by the size of the consituency, more than that of the group or the check they hand over?

Stephen writes, “shouldn’t donors act more individually?” I’ll agree with this assessment. Why don’t we say an individual can contribute unlimited amounts of cash to a campaign or a special interest group, but corporations can’t contribute any money? Would that remove the influence of big business from politics?

Corporations are seen as individuals in the eyes of the law, with many of the rights accorded to singular individuals such as ourselves.

That includes free speech, which would be abrogated if corporations could not contribute money.

My impression is that we do allow unlimited contribution, but it can’t be anonymous, and probably has to follow a certain set of rules to be permitted. This goes back to Watergate, and the campaign fund-related abuses there.

Jason, the answer to your question is George Soros. As long as Republicans were getting the lion’s share of wealthy individual donations, they were opposed to constraints on individual speech through donation. Now that Soros and many other very wealthy donors have joined the Democrat’s, many of them now are crying foul and pushing to restrain folks like Soros.

Individuals contributing to a candidate should be constrained to avoid the wealthy having favored treatment and status by the candidate upon taking office. Individual’s contributions to a political party which uses the money for party activities other than promoting a specific candidate should have no limits.

Corporations are not individuals with the interests of society at large as their focus. Therefore, corporations should not be allowed to contribute to campaigns at all.

The whole point of campaign finance reform which polls show the majority of Americans support, is to remove the corrupting influence of special interests influence upon elected officials who have an obligation to represent all their constituents, not just the ones who fund their election or reelection.

The majority of American votes have a very sound common sense on this issue. All of the resistance and haggling over campaign finance reform based on this criteria can be traced in one way or another to a special interest seeking advantage over the voters at large.

It’s a tough task but I’m trying to organize a new party that allows only cadidates who are not in a poltical party or who have decided they can no longer support the agenda and goals of the party they have been representing.All monetary funding for the party will come from individual citizen voters only-no coroporate or any other organization may contribute.I’ve named it PERSONAL INTEGRITY PARTY-PIP.Candidates will be able to vote for the needs of all UNITED STATES CITIZENS according to what the CONSTITUTION guarantees and their own personal integrity with-out big money pressure. The party will depend heavily on individual members spreading the word. I believe it can be done!