pudge's Journal: Once More on 527s

One thing that is really ticking me off is that John McCain wrote the McCain-Feingold bill, John Kerry voted for it, and George Bush signed it into law. And yet all three are complaining about 527s, with all three saying the groups are acting illegally. But they are not. All three know the law, all three were instrumental in putting the law on the books, and yet all three seem to not know that there is nothing whatsoever in the bill that makes the actions of these groups illegal.

Before the law was even passed -- I remember it at the time -- there was a great deal of talk about how this would open the gates for third party groups to take over once soft money was restricted from the campaigns themselves. For example -- and the lawyer's name might be familiar to some of you, as he's the one who recently resigned from the Bush campaign because he offered legal advice to a 527 -- the Washington Post published an article on April 1, 2001, the day before the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold bill, which included this excerpt (taken from the Senate's record, where it was entered in on April 2):

"The world under McCain-Feingold is a world where the loudest voices in the process are third-party groups." Republican election lawyer Benjamin Ginsberg said. "My fear is that the parties will just wither and essentially people will be motivated to get out to vote by the groups which champion the issues they care about." ...

"What we are doing is destroying the party system in America," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Martin Frost (Tex.). "The political parties would be neutered, and third-party groups would run the show."

Now, I think, as many people did, that the concerns of parties withering away was overstated. But the concern of third parties being loud voices was not overstated, and was well-known, and they all knew that McCain-Feingold did nothing to prevent it. And now Bush, Kerry, and McCain are crying foul? Please, spare us your crocodile tears, all of you.

I've said it before...

[bofkentucky]

..and I'll say it again.

The First Ammendment protects an American's right to free speech, therefore, unlimited "hard" money from individuals to individual canidates should be allowed. All others (527's, Political Parties, PAC's, Labor unions and civic groups) should not be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. If they wish to endorse canidates and post "Donate to this canidate" info, that's their perogative.

Some people say hard money = bribery, I say if there is actual bribery, provable in a c

Re:I've said it before...

[pudge]

I essentially agree, but what really bothers me right now is how these people are complaining about how these groups are acting illegally when they knew at the time that it was gonna happen.

That said, what you're talking about is far more important. But it's not the political issue of today. :-)

Re:I've said it before...

[baldass_newbie]

But I think Bush's beef is that 527s should be allowed which would leave individuals...where?
I think McCain-Feingold was the worst thing to happen to this country since the Income Tax or Social Security.

Another step on the path to slavery.

Obviously..

[Otter]

Now, I think, as many people did, that the concerns of parties withering away was overstated. But the concern of third parties being loud voices was not overstated, and was well-known, and they all knew that McCain-Feingold did nothing to prevent it.

Of course people knew that -- the whole point was to give third parties loud voices. The delusion was that third parties would intrinsically be more positive, issue-oriented and otherwise noble than the parties, and it turns out that (especially since they have

Intent of the lawmakers

[jdavidb]

One thing that is really ticking me off is that John McCain wrote the McCain-Feingold bill, John Kerry voted for it, and George Bush signed it into law. And yet all three are complaining about 527s, with all three saying the groups are acting illegally. But they are not. All three know the law, all three were instrumental in putting the law on the books, and yet all three seem to not know that there is nothing whatsoever in the bill that makes the actions of these groups illegal.

Yeah, but you're talking

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Is this right?

[pudge]

that they believe (or at least are asserting that they believe) this "527" isn't really one by law, that it is coordinating its attacks with the Bush campaign

Don't buy it. The evidence of coordination between Bush and the SBVT is weaker than the evidence of coordination between Kerry and Media Fund. He's attacking the existence of 527s. Now, maybe he doesn't BELIEVE they are acting illegally, but his actual FEC complaint is an attack on perfectly legal activity.

FWIW, I haven't seen anything from McCa

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Is this right?

[pudge]

Likewise Kerry has a right to believe (or claim he believes) the SBVFT are acting illegally in a specific way (coordination with a campaign team) without believing that all 527s should be shut down on principle

But the problem is that his "overwhelming evidence of coordination" amounts to nothing more than an indictment of all the major 527s, including the ones attacking Bush. Yes, OK, it is not an indictment on all 527s, but it is an indictment of every one you've ever heard of. And the gist of my post

Everyone saw this coming, didn't they?

[John Harrison]

With the candidates limited in what they can spend and when they can spend it seems that the extra the money is going to go somewhere. Since the campaigns can't coordinate and aren't responsible for what gets said by 527 groups it strikes me as obvious that they will be a major source of negative ads. Add to that the fact that the campaigns begin (or end) their ads with, "I'm so-and-so and I approve this message." making it less likely that the hard money will be used on negative ads.

It is silly to ask