Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted February 15, 2002 I'm surprised nobody has brought this topic up yet, so I'll do it. As most of us know, the campaign finance reform bill passed the House and (barring a GOP filibuster) will likely pass the Senate. Is this a GOOD thing? Personally, I hope to see Bush veto the legislation (it'll save the Supreme Court the ordeal of having to strike down the legislation themselves). The entire bill is just a litany of problems. No "issue" ads 60 days before the election? What constitutes an "issue" ad? What would happen to ANYBODY if they put one on the air? Do we really want the ONLY opinion-makers to be the same press that nobody legitimately believes to be impartial? Quite frankly, this is a shocking attack on the First Amendment---but Congress will pass it because, darn it, it makes beating an incumbant a virtual impossibility. Of course, anybody who opposes it will be painted with a negative brush as being in the back pocket of the "special interests" (interesting, considering that McCain was involved in the Keating Scandal as in knee-deep in the whole Global Crossing affair--but he's "good" guy). Personally, I feel that they should eliminate all restrictions on contributions. Let people give whatever amount they wish to campaigns. However, there should also be some EXTREMELY stringent rules about reporting who donated the money. If they can't provide an actual address (I know the Democrats had NUMEROUS donors in 1996 who listed the HQ of the DNC as their home addres), then the money cannot be accepted. And the candidates must report it all every week. If they refuse to disclose the names, that information is sent to the press AND their opposition to use as they see fit. I don't think accepting contributions makes a candidate totally beholden to any group (after all, Enron got squat for their contributions to Bush), so why limit them? If the AFL/CIO wishes to give (as an example) Al ore $25M, let them do so. It'd get out and it'd be up to Gore to explain how they haven't "bought" him. Or, if th NRLC decides to give the GOP the same amount, let the GOP explain how they haven't been bought. All the McCain/Feingold bill does is prevent groups from stating their opinions at a time when the electorate actually pays attention. It basically makes the press the winners of the Presidential election and it makes defeating an incumbant something that is almost theoretical in terms of actual possibility. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest the Goon Report post Posted February 19, 2002 it should be a good thing, but Bush is using it to make him look like a good guy. in fact, the bill is put together so badly, the two major parties actually gain from it, and it just puts restrictions on free speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jonstreich Report post Posted February 19, 2002 I should actually write my US Senator because he (Feingold) co-wrote this trash, and let him know what needs to big fixed like matching funds and tax-payer paid campaign mailings. Those are the items that need reform. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted February 19, 2002 I find it interesting that Big Media has had a hard-on for campaign-finance reform, yet the general public doesn't care about it. But nevertheless publications like the NY Times and Washinton Post continute their crusade. Interesting how Big Media would have more power as a result of CFR since political candidates and their special-interests would be limited in what they could advertise. Hmmm... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Juvydriver Report post Posted February 19, 2002 "No "issue" ads 60 days before the election? What constitutes an "issue" ad?" I don't see the problem with "issue" ads. I have a problem with what I consider "non-issue" ads that basically attack the other candidate. Would that be ok? This whole thing strikes me as posturing by politicians (which is basically what most things strike me as anymore) instead of them trying to actually get anything done of any substance. Juvy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted February 19, 2002 "No "issue" ads 60 days before the election? What constitutes an "issue" ad?" I don't see the problem with "issue" ads. I have a problem with what I consider "non-issue" ads that basically attack the other candidate. Would that be ok? This whole thing strikes me as posturing by politicians (which is basically what most things strike me as anymore) instead of them trying to actually get anything done of any substance This bill is doing somehing of substance. It's the most outright assault upon the Constitution that the Congress has passed in many, many years. Evey group has the right to present their case and say what it is that they do---and, alternatively, what they do NOT, like about candidates, issues, what have you. Politicians support this because it makes the odds of an incumbant losing (a long shot as is) even more slim. The press loves it because they get a LOT more power in the electoral process, and that is definitely not a positive thing for the country. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted February 19, 2002 I find it interesting that Big Media has had a hard-on for campaign-finance reform, yet the general public doesn't care about it. But nevertheless publications like the NY Times and Washinton Post continute their crusade. Interesting how Big Media would have more power as a result of CFR since political candidates and their special-interests would be limited in what they could advertise. Hmmm... Indeed. In poll after poll, campaign finance reform is about as relevant to the average American voter as the plight of native Eskimo fisherman in Alaska. The press backs it because the press, though they will never admit it, want more power. Ever since Watergate, the press deems itself the kingmakers and kingkillers in our society. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest kkktookmybabyaway Report post Posted February 19, 2002 "In poll after poll, campaign finance reform is about as relevant to the average American voter as the plight of native Eskimo fisherman in Alaska." That's not ture. Don't forget that lady who walked cross-country for CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! Hahahahahahahahaha... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheMikeSC Report post Posted February 19, 2002 "In poll after poll, campaign finance reform is about as relevant to the average American voter as the plight of native Eskimo fisherman in Alaska." That's not ture. Don't forget that lady who walked cross-country for CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM!!! Hahahahahahahahaha... However, an unknown piece of knowledge---CFR was her second biggest concern. Her to concern---the plight of native Eskimo fisherman in Alaska. It takes all types. :-) -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
