Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hypocritical McCain executes yet another "flip-flop"- on signature issue!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:37 AM
Original message
Hypocritical McCain executes yet another "flip-flop"- on signature issue!
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040606/news2.html

McCain, House GOP strike a BCRA deal
By Alexander Bolton

House Republican leaders have struck a deal with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to eliminate restrictions on coordination between national parties and federal candidates, a change in the law that would be of great benefit to the winner of the 2008 GOP presidential primary, according to congressional sources.

Republican and Democratic campaign-finance experts alike believe the change would be a boon to McCain’s campaign, if he wins his party’s nomination in three years, an outcome that political handicappers are beginning to view as a real possibility.

The House voted yesterday to attach legislation eliminating the coordination restriction to a bill limiting the activities of the soft-money groups known as 527s. The groups are named after a section of the tax code and are allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political activities. The resulting campaign-finance package narrowly passed the House yesterday evening.

Proponents of campaign-finance regulation such as McCain, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and their ally Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 consider the lack of limits on 527s a loophole, and closing it has been a top priority for them. But eliminating limits on party expenditures coordinated with candidates has been fiercely contested in the courts for nearly 15 years.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greeby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. Like Jon Stewart said
"The Straight-Talk Express has been rerouted through Bullshit town" :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. The straight-talk express looks a whole lot like a road map
for the road to Hana . . .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see this as an
insurmountable problem. It sounds like they want to put the same donation limits on 527's as there are on other contributions (which is $2,000 per person if I remember). First, they always seem to be referring to the Dean campaign's success in raising some much $$ so quickly. Dean did so that, but I thought almost all of that was via $25-$100 individual donations, because most of Deans suporters were the you & I folks who don't HAAVE the $$ to give $10,000 at a time. The same regulation of donations of all kinds won't change that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Flip-flop not about 527's. Read more below.
The limit on coordination between federal parties and candidates dates from the 1970s. Repealing it would allow parties to spend unlimited amounts from their coffers to pay for candidates’ campaign expenses. For example, parties could pay unlimited amounts for candidates’ staff salaries, utility bills and campaign ads. The costs, however, would have to be paid for with so-called hard money, raised by the parties in limited increments, the only funds federal parties have been allowed to raise since 2002.

Eliminating the coordination limit would be especially helpful to the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 because the Republican National Committee (RNC) has a huge fundraising advantage over its Democratic counterpart, greater than the disparity between the Republican and Democratic fundraising committees affiliated with the Senate and House.

The RNC has raised $130 million so far this election cycle and has nearly $41 million in its war chest. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) has raised $67 million since the beginning of 2005 and has only about $9 million in the bank.

“It’s obviously going to help the Republicans more — they have more money — unless the Democrats can play catch-up,” said Ken Gross, a campaign-finance expert with the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/040606/news2.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I understad all that, but couldn't the Dems just have the grassroots
just donate directly to the DNC?

As for the Pubs always having more $$, that's a given! They always will because most wealthy people are Pubs!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-06-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. DNC is getting more hard money contributions from folks than in the past
and are catching up with Rethugs on this aspect of fund raising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC