No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

[NoZed Avenger]

I have left a rant or two on this horrid, horrid piece of bipartisan, incumbent-protecting, first amendment abrogating stinking heap on several occasions.

This, despite that opening statement, is not another one.

I would like to point out the next level in absurdity, however: the way that some evidence is showing the thing was passed:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/22480.htm

That story in brief:

Charged with promoting campaign-finance reform when he joined Pew in the mid-1990s, Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of "experts" all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

"The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington," Treglia says - 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. "The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot - that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform."

A fake movement was generated specifically aimed at Congress, meant to convince everyone that there was a groundswell of opinion that mandating this legislation.

If only the facts had come out in time. Oh, wait:

"We had a scare," Treglia says. "As the debate was progressing and getting pretty close, George Will stumbled across a report that we had done and attacked it in his column. And a lot of his partisans were becoming aware of Pew's role and were feeding him information. And he started to reference the fact that Pew had played a large role in this - that this was a liberal attempt to hoodwink Congress."

"But you know what the good news is from my perspective?" Treglia says to the stunned crowd. "Journalists didn't care . . . So no one followed up on the story. And so there was a panic there for a couple of weeks because we thought the story was going to begin to gather steam, and no one picked it up."

Treglia's right. While he admits Pew specifically instructed groups receiving its grants "never to mention Pew," all these connections were disclosed (as legally required) in various tax forms and annual reports. "If any reporter wanted to know, they could have sat down and connected the dots," he said. "But they didn't."

Thanks, watchdogs of the media, for speaking truth to power and all that.

Of the $140 million spent on the McCain-Feingold campaign, it looks like $123 million came from just 8 groups.

How was the money spent? In part, it was given to media outlets in order to "train" the outlets on how to report the news regarding campaign finance reform. One example:

Since 1994, National Public Radio has accepted more than $1.2 million from liberal foundations promoting campaign-finance reform for items such as (to quote the official disclosure statements) "news coverage of financial influence in political decision-making." About $400,000 of that directly funded a program called, "Money, Power and Influence."

NPR claims that there has never been any contact between the funders and the reporters. NPR also claims that some of the $1.2 million went to non-campaign-finance-related coverage. But at least $860,000 can be tied directly to coverage of money in politics.

There are plenty of others thast look worse.


This should have never passed, have never been signed, and should never have passed Constituional muster by the Supreme Court.

Finally, a law that allows me to hold all three braches of our government in contempt simultaneously.

Feh.

Ok, it was a little rant, after all. But Jesus.

I mean. Just.


Jesus.

 

[Luke T.]

I care about McCain-Feingold. Have debated it on here several times. Predicted a year or so before the last election that it wouldn't change a thing. Shanek seemed to be under the impression that it forbid campaign ads 30 days prior to the election. I didn't buy it. Turns out I was right.

I've often thought about telegramming Senator McCain and asking him "How's campaign finance working out for ya!?!?" I don't know if he was naive or stupid or both.

If you read the original bill, it forbade franking for Congressmen a year before their re-election. It mysteriously disappeared from the final version. Big mystery there, eh?

A fake movement was generated specifically aimed at Congress, meant to convince everyone that there was a groundswell of opinion that mandating this legislation.

A fake movement. Like Swift Boat Vets?

Does the ends justify the means?

 

[Luke T.]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32340

Originally posted by Shanek:
Also, if you're a wealthy individual, you can spend $10,000 on a TV ad and say pretty much whatever you want. But if 100 people get together and put in $100 apiece, they can't do the same thing.

Originally posted by Shanek:
No, it isn't. It still means the incumbent politicians and parties get essentially free air time while the challengers are left with no way to get their message out. Whomever the Libertarian candidate for President is will have to forego television advertisements while both Bush and the Democratic candidate get to fill the airwaves.

As we all saw, groups like the Swift Boat Vets and MoveOn.org spent far more money than the candidates' campaigns on ads. If the Libertarian Party was not able to get a lot of ads on the air, it was simply because they couldn't raise the money to run ads, not because of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has launched another flurry of television advertisements attacking Democrat John Kerry, and Houston homebuilder Bob Perry is providing most of the money.

In a report available to the public on Monday, the organization disclosed that it spent $326,210 on ads aired earlier this month in New Mexico and Nevada — states considered key to winning the White House this year.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/002234.html

Originally posted by Shanek:
Also, incumbent politicians can say whatever they want 30 days before an election (the most crucial time for campaigning) and the press can quote them all day long; but challengers cannot purchase air time to refute their statements.

To back up this extraordinary claim, Shanek quoted from the Libertarian Party web site:

"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."

Again, there was a flood of special interest group ads in the 30 days before the election.

Fox News persists in airing ads from the discredited Swift Boaters. A new one aired today (October 18, 2004) at 4:52 p.m. ET during Your World w/Neil Cavuto.

http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/18/fox_news_continues_wswift_boat_ads.php

My prediction in the topic from December 2003:

I do not believe this will change the number of campaign ads we see on TV one scintilla.

That's how much confidence I felt that any campaign finance reform would occur. If anything, it's worse now.

Originally posted by Luke T.:
I've been reading over this bill out of my own curiousity. It's a fascinating document. You can almost hear the conversations that must have taken place as the writers tried to figure out every trick somebody might try to pull to get money into a candidate's coffers and then figuring out a way to stop it.

Exercise in futility.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

I care about McCain-Feingold. Have debated it on here several times. Predicted a year or so before the last election that it wouldn't change a thing. Shanek seemed to be under the impression that it forbid campaign ads 30 days prior to the election. I didn't buy it. Turns out I was right.

I do not for a moment think that the bill can take the money out of politics.

But look at the recent news stories saying that the committee may now get to decide whether political blogs now have to start filing if their articles are seen as "contributions" to a campaign that they agree with. If so, they have to dot their i's and cross their t's or face heavy penalties for engaging in political speech. Accepting an ad from a campaign, as I read the statute, could be expanded into "coordination" with a campaign.

At the very least, potential chilling effects are there -- along with a huge addition to the beauracracy and federal power. At best, it adds complexity, expense, and uncertainty for absolutely zero gain. At worst, it chills freedom of expression and threatens core political speech.

I see nothing positive coming from it, even if you consider it merely ineffective.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

I care about McCain-Feingold. Have debated it on here several times. Predicted a year or so before the last election that it wouldn't change a thing. Shanek seemed to be under the impression that it forbid campaign ads 30 days prior to the election. I didn't buy it. Turns out I was right.

No, you weren't. We tried to raise money here to put Badnarik for President ads in our local media. The BCRA specifically prohibited us from doing so. Only the campaigns themselves can do that. I told you that at the time. It did prevent us from doing exactly that.

 

[shanek]

As we all saw, groups like the Swift Boat Vets and MoveOn.org spent far more money than the candidates' campaigns on ads.

Because they're legal 527s. They get special rights, apparently.

If the Libertarian Party was not able to get a lot of ads on the air, it was simply because they couldn't raise the money to run ads, not because of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

No, we had the money. We were specifically told we couldn't do it because of the BCRA. We were told that, if we weren't the campaign, we would have to form a 527. When we tried, we ran into tons of bureaucratic roadblocks.

The Badnarik campaign did run national ads on CNN, Fox News, and other networks.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

I do not for a moment think that the bill can take the money out of politics.

It did out of the grass-roots side.

But look at the recent news stories saying that the committee may now get to decide whether political blogs now have to start filing if their articles are seen as "contributions" to a campaign that they agree with. If so, they have to dot their i's and cross their t's or face heavy penalties for engaging in political speech. Accepting an ad from a campaign, as I read the statute, could be expanded into "coordination" with a campaign.

Look at the thread I just created on Bradley Smith for more about this. It may even stop us from posting in this very forum, since we talk about the candidates all the time.

 

[Luke T.]

No, we had the money. We were specifically told we couldn't do it because of the BCRA. We were told that, if we weren't the campaign, we would have to form a 527. When we tried, we ran into tons of bureaucratic roadblocks.

These same roadblocks did not prevent moveon.org or the Swift Boat Vets from getting on the air. Is the LP incompetent?

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

But look at the recent news stories saying that the committee may now get to decide whether political blogs now have to start filing if their articles are seen as "contributions" to a campaign that they agree with. If so, they have to dot their i's and cross their t's or face heavy penalties for engaging in political speech. Accepting an ad from a campaign, as I read the statute, could be expanded into "coordination" with a campaign.

Yes. Let's look at the recent news stories. Can you link them please? Also the statute to which you refer. If you mean the "McCain-Feingold," then the section that you think applies. Thanks.

 

[shanek]

These same roadblocks did not prevent moveon.org or the Swift Boat Vets from getting on the air. Is the LP incompetent?

No, we just couldn't pass through the roadblocks to get 527 status like those two groups could. Trust me, it's all about how close you are to the establishment. The whole point is to shut down the grassroots voice.

The campaigns could do it. The 527s could do it. And no one else.

 

[shanek]

Re: Re: Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

Yes. Let's look at the recent news stories. Can you link them please? Also the statute to which you refer. If you mean the "McCain-Feingold," then the section that you think applies. Thanks.

I have a separate thread about an interview from FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith who blew the whistle on it. He explains all of that.

 

[Luke T.]

And I will repeat the sentiment I had in the JREF topic I linked above, just so there is no misunderstanding. I think the BCRA is a load of crap and a threat to free speech. But let's get it's true nature and the true threat identified and not commit pure fear-mongering here.

Saying "it could do this" is fear-mongering. So far, the BCRA has not shut off the money going to campaigns. It has not prevented only the rich and powerful from getting their voice heard. It has not diminished the level of political ads.

 

[Luke T.]

No, we just couldn't pass through the roadblocks to get 527 status like those two groups could. Trust me, it's all about how close you are to the establishment. The whole point is to shut down the grassroots voice.

The campaigns could do it. The 527s could do it. And no one else.

What you seem to be implying is that even if you did all the paperwork correctly, there is a vast conspiracy to prevent your particular organization from forming a legal 527. I can't just trust you on such an extraordinary claim, can I?

 

[shanek]

Saying "it could do this" is fear-mongering. So far, the BCRA has not shut off the money going to campaigns.

I never claimed it would. What it did to is stop individuals and grassroots organizations from running ads even mentioning a Federal office holder before an election. And everyone seems to understand this but you.

It has not prevented only the rich and powerful from getting their voice heard.

You honestly thought it would?

It has not diminished the level of political ads.

It has diminished the ability ordinary people had to run their own ads, though. And that is a gross violation of free speech and blatant incumbent protection.

 

[shanek]

What you seem to be implying is that even if you did all the paperwork correctly, there is a vast conspiracy to prevent your particular organization from forming a legal 527. I can't just trust you on such an extraordinary claim, can I?

Try it.

I'll give you one example of the roadblocks they put into place: In order to form a 527, you have to have a separate bank account, not used for anything else, registered to the 527. But, in a classic Catch 22, in order to open this account you have to have already formed the 527.

We asked some existing PACs how you actually manage to create the thing. They told us that you have to go to another 527 that you're in tight enough with to have them let you use their bank account information to set up the 527, open your own account, then fill out the forms to change your 527s account to the new one.

Of course, a 527 isn't going to let just anyone use their bank account information. So anyone who's already closely tied in with a 527 can start one; anyone trying to go from scratch faces an almost impossible task.

Oh, and by the way, campaigns are limited to $2000 from each individual during an election cycle, so even the campaigns were seriously limited in their fundraising ability (the ones who weren't handed tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, that is).

That's exactly why Badnarik only raised 1/3rd the amount of Browne, even with a higher number of supporters.

 

[Luke T.]

I never claimed it would. What it did to is stop individuals and grassroots organizations from running ads even mentioning a Federal office holder before an election. And everyone seems to understand this but you.

It has not stopped them. I didn't see any more or less grassroots organizations before or after BCRA. What it has done is add another hoop they have to jump through. More red tape supposedly for accountability purposes. I think the idea is not to stop the money, but to track it.

You honestly thought it would?

Hell, no. I predicted it wouldn't.

It has diminished the ability ordinary people had to run their own ads, though. And that is a gross violation of free speech and blatant incumbent protection.

I don't believe the motivation behind McCain-Feingold was "blatant incumbent protection." That may be what it turned into. Remember, one blatant incumbent protection was found by me in the topic linked above. The removal of the franking restriction from the original bill.

 

[Luke T.]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

I have a separate thread about an interview from FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith who blew the whistle on it. He explains all of that.

I just read it and will follow the fall-out with interest.

 

[Luke T.]

Oh, and by the way, campaigns are limited to $2000 from each individual during an election cycle, so even the campaigns were seriously limited in their fundraising ability (the ones who weren't handed tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, that is).

That's exactly why Badnarik only raised 1/3rd the amount of Browne, even with a higher number of supporters.

I believe that restriction was there long before BCRA. I believe that is from the 1970s and is what led to the invention of PACs.

I think the BCRA actually raised the limit from $1000 to $2000 from the 1970s version of campaign finance reform.

 

[shanek]

I don't believe the motivation behind McCain-Feingold was "blatant incumbent protection." That may be what it turned into. Remember, one blatant incumbent protection was found by me in the topic linked above. The removal of the franking restriction from the original bill.

Yeah, I had a whole thread about franking myself.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: No One Cares About McCain-Feingold, but. . .

Yes. Let's look at the recent news stories. Can you link them please? Also the statute to which you refer. If you mean the "McCain-Feingold," then the section that you think applies. Thanks.

Well, that paragraph wasn't even my main point, but fair enough:

The controversy was sparked by comments from one of the FEC commissioners in two interviews given by him after a federal court invalidated attempts to exempt the internet from McCain-Feingold (the "Act"):

An example of one of the articles is at http://news.com.com/The+coming+crackdown+on+blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html , though there are plenty of other examples.

Smith -- in what admittedly may have been a purposeful attempt to stir up the controversy -- indicated that even linking to a political website might trigger the Act's reporting requirements, etc:

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s (in the Leo Smith case) that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.

It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?

How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?
I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly.

Then what's the real impact of the judge's decision?
The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services.

Again, Smith may simply be stirring the pot -- but the FEC has been looking at issues relating to "valuing" the contributions given by webpages and how to regulate that since hearings back in 2002 (I don't have a link handy, but you should be able to locate a summary from a resource such as http://www.brookings.org ). So it is not like the Commission has not been condiering implementing these types of restrictions.

I am not involved in any previous arguments you may have been in with Shanek. I do not know what he has argued for or against in this case, but my arguments and his do not appear to have much of a connection here -- at best it is a tangent.

I do not believe it is fear-mongering to point out what at least one of the Commissioners is indicating that the FEC *might* be considering or implementing in the future. The fact that the FEC even maintains that it might have the ability to do so -- even if not implemented -- is troubling to me.

The nature of the FEC's decision-making process compounds my concern. There is no provision to allow the respondent to appear in person before the Commission, there is no ability to cross-examine witnesses or even see all of the evidence being considered by the Commission before a decision is made -- making a defense problematic, at best. Moreover, the Commisison responds to complaints -- allowing a tactic of flooding the FEC with complaints about political opponents.

This certainly raises the possibility that bloggers who find themselves as respondents before the FEC would have to spend significant amounts of time and money defending themselves from, essentially, a campaign audit, wherein they will be forced to show no coordination with political campaigns. The threat of that much red tape and time wasted may have a real chilling effect on a lot of persons and discourage them from participating in the political arena.

The Act, I believe, will not "get the money out of politics" and will never be able to -- just look at the amounts being spent. So we've given broad powers to an oversight committee that appears to maintain it *could*, if it decided to, extensively regulate core political speech under an Act that cannot possibly deliver the alleged benefits it was supposedly created to fight.

The original court decision on the Act -- as a basis for overturning core political speech, cited the overriding public interest in avoiding a "perception" of possible corruption. That -- accepting such an anemic "interest" to override the First Amendment -- is mind-boggling. It has the potential -- if taken to its logical end -- to completely abrogate political speech whenever a court manaeges to discover a new "overriding public interest"

I do not believe that pointing out the above is fear-mongering. A public reaction to this possibility might in fact be useful in convincing the FEC and/or Congress to back off.

In fact, while you correctly point out that the FEC did not stop 527's from spending money in the last campaign, it may be that the 200,000+ complaints on the topic generated by all of the concern played a part in convincing the FEC to keep out of it. I am not stating that as a position, but I cannot rule out that possibility at the moment.

I simply think that the Act is bad law with bad consequences and an incredible potential for abuse on a very important subject.

N/A