Will the Dems now stop using organizations like Move on...
 

to get around campaign finance reform measures since Kerry's fundraising is approaching par with Bush? If the only reason to use them was really because Bush had such a huge warchest (as was touted ad infinitum by the talking heads) shouldn't they now stop using them (or at least cut back their efforts) since the Kerry organization is becoming a fund raising juggernaut as well?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html

That would assume a spirit of "fair play" on both parts that can't be assumed in our political process, unfortunately. As long as it's technically legal, whether it's ethical or not, both parties/candidates will use every advantage they can. I do wish that soft money would be spent more on voter registration/education than on television advertising, but unfortunately the ads are what get peoples' attention and stick with them.

Considering the MoveOn is largely funded by billionaire George Soros, whose avowed goal is anyone but Bush, the Dems pretty much were on par.

Well add in groups like Club for Growth and others like the ones funded by Soros' polar opposite, Richard Melon Scaife, and it looks like MoveOn has it's hands full just evening out with the other partisan orgs.

There are a myriad of groups on both sides that do the same thing as Move On. Superbelt mentioned Club for Growth, but you could add any number of others (the NRA is planning to get even heavier into the act and has started its own internet radio station to get out the word) Onetime2 if you truly have an issue with these types of groups, you should get on the campaign finance reform bandwagon and/or condemn organizations that support your viewpoint as well as those that do not.

P.S. I don't generally support Move On, but I support their right to say what they think.

Interesting that you assume I agree with the other groups that are doing it. I have been for campaign finance reform long before I ever ventured into this forum and have made plenty of posts toward that end.

My point was, and remains, that the Democrats claimed the ONLY reason they had to resort to such tactics was the HUGE difference in fundraising between Bush and Kerry (regardless of the fact that the 9+ candidate field is the reason fund raising was slow in the beginning for most campaigns). Now that the gap has decreased their reason is gone. If this was Bush's team doing it people would be crying LOOK THEY LIED AGAIN.

While the NRA is a favored example it is far different from Move On and its ilk. The NRA was formed and remains dedicated to the cause of gun ownership. Move On and others are created purely to combat the Republican Party and more specifically George Bush.

Well, Bush STILL has an 80 mill cash advantage.

And as MoveOn is specifically to assist democrats and tear down republicans Club For Growth is specifically to attack democrats and moderate republicans. (Arlen Specter etc.)

So, really these things balance out. You can't ask "us" to call for MoveOn to disband and desist while groups like Club for Growth can go around and slander candidates.

Really, What the fuck? At least MoveOn acts like adults. CFG seems like it's written and spearheaded by grade schoolers.

I'm sure Move On will move on as soon as Bush stops using his power for personal gain.

I am a democrat, and I have never claimed this. Perhaps you have a source?

i think he is probably guessing it would happen looking at past responses to presidential policies

i think everyone here has seen the proof and it goes both ways so no one is innocent

How is Bush using his power for personal gain (I mean more than Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon, etc did)?

In my personal opinion? A war for oil and to avenge daddy, where every single reason he claims is later rebuked and claimed never to have been said. Policies that are made behind closed doors with no notes and executives of those benefitting most present (granted every president probably has done this but he got caught same as Nixon.)

Just 2 examples.

I'm sure pan6467 will post some facts to back this up as soon as he/she stops posting one-liners that are impossible to back up with facts.

Did right above your post. **Apparently I don't know what flaming is, or that we don't do that here.**

Let's see, you want facts?

first there was the "he was involved with 9/11, then the administration backed down real fast when no proof was found,

then there was imminent danger and when that was found to be BS they very quickly denied ever saying or insinuating it,

then there was WMD's and when none were found they denied ever using that as a reason,

Then we had Saddam was a dictator who killed millions of his own people. Which if that is the reason then why do we not go after Nigeria, N. Korea, China and other dictators just as bad or worse?

Meanwhile Halliburton and Carlyle get richer and so does the family.

Making policies while the top execs of the companies affected sit in (most of whom donated heavily to his election campaign, AEP, FirstEnergy, ENRON etc). Then claim they do not have to turn over those records at all. Won't even admit as to who was there.

And by the way, I never claimed Clinton, Bush 1, or no other president didn't abuse his power, just this one is more blatant about it.

So do you want me to post links to each one of those facts? They have been posted I'm sure quite often here but I will if you so desire Seretogis. I mean after all don't want to strain your time by having to do research.

In order for something to be a fact, it must be proven. What you have is a collection of conspiracy theories and examples of an obese government double-talking the public as usual.

My use of the term "Democrats" in my posts would have been better stated as "Democratic Leadership". It was done constantly on the news programs when there was a focus on how these "new" Democratic groups (The Media Fund, Americans Coming Together, Move On, etc) were circumventing the campaign finance reform laws.

I am certainly not saying the Republican Party is innocent in 527 group abuse but am particularly annoyed by the acceptance of a blatant effort to get around the McCain Feingold Act which so many "leaders" trumpeted their support for. While many politicians have been forced through public pressure to disband the 527 organizations they created in the past to support their reelection, these major organizations are quietly being accepted by the DNC and the Kerry campaign.

I have no doubt that the RNC will do the same thing should their complaint with the FEC about these groups be dismissed or it becomes politically expedient for them. And when it happens I will gladly denounce the practice. The failure to denounce these groups will only serve to allow them to multiply.

http://www.nrsc.org/nrscweb/daschle_...rticle59.shtml

Per the article, Bush had $185 million banked over the past year or more but has spent one third of it. That brings him down to about $120 million. Kerry earned $80 million this year alone putting the two pretty much on par. Throw in the money that the 527 groups have spent against Bush and what Kerry spent himself prior to this year and it's either a wash or spending in support of Kerry may be over the top of spending in support of Bush.

That's over a 43 million dollar gap...if anyone else followed the math of your figures.

You're right the administration was never recorded making any one of those claims.

So then perhaps you'll tell me what the facts are that demonstrates this is a just war and NOT Bush abusing his power for profit and vengence?

After all you won't accept my facts so I would like to hear you tell me the facts so I am educated?

Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how a president can make policy behind closed doors with the people who would profit most by his policies, and then refuse to divulge there even was a meeting to the public?

Perhaps you can save the taxpayers the millions of dollars the lawsuit is costing by telling us exactly how that is not abusing power and that it is legal and the meetings even tho affecting public policy have no right to be known by the people?

Perhaps instead of attacking me you'll supply "facts".

you two will never agree to a shared criteria of what a "just war" is.

facts are irrelevant as long as the definition of what constitutes a just action is not similar.

Umm yeah but it's not 80 million as described and it isn't that big of a gap when you throw in the money spent by the 527 organizations already as pointed out in the post. So, they are essentially on equal footings now.

How do you know the gap was minimized by the 527's?
The 527's aren't one way. They are, as said, on both sides. So I think they even out each other if anything.

So that still leaves over 43 mill gap,

Amazing isn't it?

We talk about which candidate has more millions while schools go bankrupt, people can't afford healthcare and everything is being outsourced.

Gotta love where the priorities are in this country.

This country should mandate that any national party who wants to field a candidate must be on the ballot in at least 45 states. Then you get money from the Fed to field your campaign. Live within that. 527's and other ancillary orgs are gone and all are prohibited from releasing any advertisements in support of or against a candidate. That includes entertainers who want to talk about a candidate for more than 20 minutes in a day in an election year (6 months before the election).

True news organizations are allowed to report but the FCC should monitor them to look for any blatant politicing going on. And that should be brough before a special judiciary panel.

-----Of course this isn't complete and should be worked out somehow, but it's as good a base as any to work off of.-----

They are not equal on both sides that's why the gap decreases. If that weren't the case then how could the supporters of the Democratic 527s listed above make the claim that they are being used to even the field?

The last thing schools need is more money. They need to become efficient first and foremost. Ahh nevermind, there's little point in debating these things again.

Because it sounds good? It's inspiring.
Do you have any statistics either way that the democratic 527's are outspending their republican counterparts?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar23.html

An excerpt:

and

onetime2, I was not implying anything in regards to you in particlular, you have made it clear that you are for campaign finance reform. My issue lies with the fact that regardless of numbers both sides use 527's. The NRA was just a quick example that came to mind because I had just seen a report on it, and to be fair LaPeirre and his crew have made it abundantly clear that they are working to get President Bush reelected. Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a group who gets together to foment change. That is the essence of MoveOn, it is just that the change they seek is who resides in the White House.

One issue that has not been addressed, is the fact that the Democratic Party and the Kerry campaign do not have control over how the 527 money is spent, and this prevents them from setting a clear, focused message to the public like the Bush campaign has done so successfully. Don't get me wrong, they would rather have the 527's out there than not having them at all, but they would much rather be in Bush's shoes.

The NRA is not the same as MoveOn et al. They are two separate types of groups. Notice I haven't dug on the AFL CIO either? That's because they are equivalent to the NRA.

As far as the argument that the lack of coordination between the DNC and the Kerry campaign puts them at some sort of disadvantage that's completely off the mark, IMO. They are at least as well organized if not more organized than the Bush campaign. This arrangement lets the 527s act as attack dogs while the Kerry campaign can appear above the fray. And when certain aspects of the 527's strategy pan out, the Kerry campaign can capitalize on them while letting the failed efforts falter without the campaign getting the blame for a failed strategy.

One of the reasons Soros donated so much money to campaign finance "reform" is that is penalizes groups like the NRA, while NOT penalizing 527s, like MoveOn (which he gives millions too).

In other words, he wanted to squash other's rights to political speech while preserving his own, which is why I think he is a bastard scum.

I think you are getting caught up in semantics. I do not think MoveOn and the NRA are the same. They are vastly different, but to simply say that the poor downtrodden Republicans have no one out there helping Bush get reelected is a complete farce. Has the Democratic party done a better job than the Republicans in regards to 527s? Yes they have - necessity is the mother of invention.

As far as the "message" issue, we can agree to dissagree on that one and I guess well find out in November. I do know that several friends who work on the Kerry campaign have said that while the do like the support, they often have to go "off message" to address isssues that the various 527's have brought up in a commercial and they believe it is part of what is preventing Kerry from getting out a complete message to the American public.

I was just saying there is so much more we can do to make people's lives better and more fulfilling and making the country better than to watch these candidates spend millions feeding a media machine that greedily accepts their money. And the media then reports how campaign financing is evil.

My opinion all candidates and issues should be allotted the same amount of time and billboard space as a public service. How hard would it be to say Kerry gets 3 ads and Bush gets 3 ads during primetime. Each is 1 minute in length and each candidate gets alternating half hours.

My point is not and has never been that the "Republicans have no on out there helping Bush get reelected". The point, per the title of the thread and the messages contained within it, is that the Dems pointed to the 527 organizations they created as being necessary to level the playing field and that if they weren't so behind in donations they wouldn't be using them. Recent statements by Democratic leaders and independent analyses by non partisan groups agree that the playing field is at the very least equal. Argue all you want for campaign finance reform but without arguing against this practice the words are hollow.

If the Kerry campaign, its supporters, and the DNC were truly interested in campaign finance reform they would not "like the support" the 527s provide. They'd be opposed to their creation and opposed to the unlimited individual contributions currently accepted by them. They had the opportunity to proclaim these groups in violation of the tenets of campaign finance reform but they chose not to. It's another example of politicians putting their own immediate needs above the beliefs they allegedly hold. (And I'm sure the Republicans will follow suit by creating more 527 groups in response when their complaint(s) don't yield results). The fact that Democratic supporters created and funded these groups put the onus on the DNC and its leadership. If the shoe was on the other foot and it was the Republicans being the first to use these tactics to such an extent I'd be blasting them the same way.

Damn it pan stop it! I can't possibly be expected to refrain from questioning my place in the universe when I agree with you twice in one week. :D

It is scary. I'll have to go find 2 threads I can disagree with you on.... thereby eliminating this meeting of the minds we are having.

What scares me more is I'm starting to see agreeable qualities in Irate.

What a freaky 3 some that is.

I commend your allegiance to campaign finance reform, and to a certain degree I agree with you. I, however, am a pragmatist and not as much of an idealist as you. If the law allows 527's and my candidate needs their assistance, I am all for it. I have an extreme level of discomfort (nicest words I can use) with President Bush and his Administration, so I will look to any support I can get to remove them from power.

As far as your original question about whether they should cut out 527 fundraising or at least curtail them, obviously I believe the answer is no. But it is a valid question. I don't think that the Bush Administration is going to quit doing fundraising, and while Kerry is doing a respectable job raking in the cash(mine included), I would personally advise him (if he were ever to ask me) to continue to distance himself from some of the more radical ones, stay on his own message and reap the benefits.

All this being said, I guess I am part of the problem with campaign finance reform, but I will suffer with that scarlet letter until President Bush is out of office.

nuff said, thanks for reading

So approving of tactics that are potentially illegal (and without a doubt in opposition to Kerry's own stated beliefs) are fine because the end justifies the means. Got it. I would have respected Kerry a lot more if he stood up and said that these groups fly in the face of campaign finance reform and they shouldn't be tolerated. Leadership is following principles and setting good precedents not succumbing to the pressure to take the easy route.

I laugh my ass off whenever someone claims they would have respected or otherwise supported someone for something that didn't happen when everyone else realizes there no way the person would have done so.

It's like when my mom used to say, if you hadn't sneaked that cookie earlier, I would have bought you ice-cream for desert.

The point is, when someone is looking for a reason not to like someone or give that person something, they are going to find a reason somewhere eventually.

I don't understand. Is anyone in government claiming that 527's are illegal? I thought the argument, at best, was that the loophole should be closed.

I found a nice list of 527's:
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/s...exp&sub=topcom

While there is no shortage of liberal/democratic groups, there are certainly a lot of republican/conservative groups in there as well.

So, how did this become a Democratic issue? The Republicans appear to be using the 527's as well, and have been for years.

Yes, the Bush Administration has filed complaints with the FEC claiming they violate the rules of campaign finance reform.

As outlined throughout the thread, it became a Democratic issue when Democratic supporters built massive 527 groups and the leaders of their party constantly said the only reason they support them is to level the playing field with the Bush administration. Look at the quote from Kerry above and tell me why it is he now feels ok that campaign finance reform should be circumvented.

As far as smooth, yeah it's exactly like stealing cookies. Whatever. The point is he had an opportunity to lead and he fell flat on his face and became a follower to what many of the extremist members of his party want (sounds remarkably like the accusations you make about Bush all the time,huh?).

Go ahead and defend the practice but I will be sure to remind you all of your stand whenever the campaign finance reform topic comes up again. Supporting the expanded use of 527 groups will only serve to allow them to proliferate. You're trading one bad form of campaign finance for another. Way to go all.

Oh, I think the loophole should be closed in a fair way, but I also think the current hearings are politically charged, and are timed in a way to hurt Kerry, who is still fundraising, and help Bush, who already has a lot of money in the bank.

After this election cycle, it's certainly a good time to take a look at 527's and close them if necessary.

I never argued for campaign finance reform. I don't want to support politicians' bullshit promises with public money.

The only thing I've ever supported is carving out public access on the public airwaves.

If someone has private money, they have the right to use it how they want. Funding political expression seems to be a fundamental right. Securing that possibility for someone who isn't a billionaire, however, would level the playing field better than paying everyone's advertising costs out of the public coffer, in my opinion.

My comment wasn't about stealing cookies. It was about the observation that you wouldn't ever support Kerry, so why keep pointing out how you [onetime's whiny voice]can't support him after THIS[/onetime's whiny voice]?

OneTime I give up, you and I agree too much on this issue.

The universe is now outta synch somewhere, and there are 2 people who agreed on everything now fighting.

See what you and I have done.

I reiterate............ I'm comin to join ya Elizabeth, I'll have a Winston in 1 hand, a nacho cheese Slim Jim in the other and a full 14 club golfbag around my shoulder, waiting for Onetime for that eternal tee off.

That's where you are wrong. There are plenty of things I dislike about Bush and if there was a candidate who stood firmly for certain things I believe in I would back them. It doesn't matter if they're Republican Democrat or Other. Respect has a lot to do with where my vote goes. Showing leadership earns my respect, skirting the rules a candidate allegedly trumpets support for doesn't.

Amazing isn't it? And yet we can disagree on some points and still remain civil. If that's not a lesson for some respondents in this thread I don't know what is. :D

If by hearings you mean the hearing of the FEC complaint, it will have no effect in this election as the decision is too far off.

Yee ha! Let the unregulated buying of influence rise to a whole new level. Way to go!

The question now becomes, what questionable strategy will be used to "relevel" the playing field now that the Bush/RNC side will stoop to following the Kerry/DNC's stupendous example of avoiding campaign finance reform?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ads/index.html

I don't understand your problem with advertisements.

I have a problem with donors dumping money into people's pockets, but I don't see any justification for restricting donors rights to political speech. If a bunch of people, or one wealthy person, wants to spend millions on supporting a measure or a person, go for it.

The only restructing I support is making sure that money doesn't go into candidates' pockets and opening a minimum airspace for people to use who don't have the millions to pay for it.

So, just because the money doesn't go into their pockets it can't possibly influence them? Allowing people to have a "minimum airspace" to make their points known will somehow counter the influence that can be exerted by groups spending tens of millions? Not likely.

These groups make it too easy to buy influence. That's one of the main reasons campaign finance reform was championed and that's what's being subverted. This Presidential election will have more spending on advertising than any in history and the spend will only grow in the future.

I'm not in for countering the influence groups who spend tens of millions of dollars in our current economy.

If you don't like it, start supporting socialism or communism (which I would prefer).

But your current stance undermines and contradicts, in my opinion, your current support for our capitalist economy.

I would also prefer you not put words in my mouth. I'm not doing it to you. I didn't say that candidates can't be influenced by other people campaigning on their behalf.

If you think it will, why not just type: "allowing other people to campaign on a candidate's behalf will influence him or her just as much as putting the money in his or her pocket because..."

As it stands, you haven't provided any support for that assertion. I don't believe they influence candidates equally, but I certainly didn't say that, either. The more important point, to me, is whether the government has a right to restrict people from spending money in the political arena when it doesn't directly amount to a pay-off. I don't think it does. That's one of the side-effects of living in a capitalist society that holds freedom of political speech and action as one of its highest values.

I think the benefits outweigh these costs. I support equalizing the field by providing guarantees and opportunities, not by placing restrictions on actions.

Only if you believe that within a "capitalist economy" everything is for sale. Corruption occurs in every form of economy and the fair representation of all citizens calls for the avenues of corruption to be limited wherever possible.

I've put no words in your mouth. You pointedly said that so long as the money doesn't end up in their pockets you don't see it being a problem.

The government has a responsibility to keep the political process free from unfair representation the current rules allow those with larger pocket books to freely garner more power and influence.

Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of capitalism as I understand it.

I haven't seen anything in the US culture to rebut the notion that everything has its price. I don't know any capitalists who would deny that, either.

There are plenty of examples. You can not legally buy:

a person

political favors

your way out of legal charges

etc, etc, etc.

I "pointedly" typed that I didn't see a justification for restricting one's right to political speech.

You interpreted that I didn't have a problem with that. You also interpreted that I believe that unless money goes directly into someone's pocket, then they won't be influenced.

Both of those interpretations were incorrect assumptions you made based off your caricature of my belief system. Just rely on what I type instead of arguing against what you think I believe.

I'll lay it out for you more clearly so you don't continue to stumble:

1) In our society, I don't see any justification for limiting one's political action, short of barring people from directly paying candidates to return favors. I'm not even sure there is a justifcation to limit buying people, but our value system has grown to denounce that.

2) The people with the most money get to purchase political power and influence. As far as I know, this has always been the case. This doesn't equate to unfair represenation. If people want more power and influence, they are free to make more money and purchase it. Those who have worked hard in life should be free to spend their money how they want--including purchasing more power and influence.

3) In our society, I would rather we provide for opportunity and rights to level the playing field as much as possible than restricting others' rights.

4) I have a big problem with all of this. I don't think it's morally right. I think that some people will never be able to gain wealth and its accompanying power and influence due to their lack of the means of production. I think that everything is, and ought to be, for sale in a capitalist society. That's the definition. To undermine that is to create further structural inconsistencies that serve to undermine its legitimacy.

In short, don't claim to be one thing and do another. I would rather we were consistent than inconsistent because then we have to continue to layer on regulation after regulation that doesn't make sense. Then we have to create a justification for our acions--like we are doing now.

5) I'm not a capitalist because of the problems I have identified above. But at least I don't claim to be a capitalist and then refuse to act like one becaue I don't have money or power. I don't think I can claim to support capitalism only when it suits me. I don't think you should either. I think you should support capitalism with all its benefits and warts, or not support it at all.

person: employees

political favors: PACs

legal charges: unnecessary since wealthy people are less likely to be charged in the first place; the laws are written to penalize actions of the lower class moreso than the actions of the wealthy; finally, when all else fails, the more money one has the better attorneys he or she can buy = acquittal.

These are the inconsistencies that I am referring to that undermine our system as a whole and decrease its legitimacy. Either be consitent or restructure the economic and value system.

Alright, so you don't support capitalism but you don't see any substantial reason to believe that buying people off is wrong.



Being able to influence decisions (including spending the nation's money, raising taxes, creating laws, etc) to a greater extent because you spend money to elect a politician is absolutely unfair representation. Just because it's "always been the case" it doesn't mean it's fair.



I guess I don't understand why this is even an argument. If anything it supports my view since the unequal playing field in terms of opportunity that allows the "rich" to influence politics expands the supposed inequality of opportunity.



The definition of a capitalistic society is not that everything is for sale. It's that the means of production and sale of goods is privately owned rather than government or "collectively" owned.


Your definition of a capitalist obviously differs from mine. Your belief that everything should be for sale in a capitalistic society conflicts with the real definition of capitalism. Further, there is no reason that the political process of a society based on private ownership of business and markets of exchange can not be subject to regulation. THe two are not mutually exclusive.

It's obvious there is little room for discussion between us as we apparently live in entirely different worlds.

Employees are not owned by companies.

PACs can not legally buy off politicians.

Laws are not written to unequally punish the "lower class" and there are countless cases of the rich being charged and going to prison.

Actually, there are plenty of examples where this is the case. For example: crack cocaine, used by the poor, carries much harsher mandatory penalties than normal cocaine, used by the rich. And certainly it's the case that a more expensive lawyer equals a lesser sentence. O.J., anyone?

ah shit, harmless, thanks for the support but I wish you hadn't fallen for the red herring like I did.

All that other crap aside:

explain how you can support RJ Reynolds spending whatever it wants promoting its product, but deny MoveOn from spending whatever it wants promoting its product?

please explain how you are classifying the former as a "good*" and the latter as not a "good"?

Are you basing this on your subjective interpretation of the content of the message?

do you believe our government should limit some speech over the airwaves based on content?

who should decide which content to limit?

specifically, should it limit political speech?

should it only do so once a particular group reaches a certain position of power (say, X amount of money to spend)?

why would this not be counter-intutitive, wherein the victor loses the spoils?


* by good I assume you mean commodity. please explain what you think a commodity is. You seem to think it has an objective meaning, rather than two things a buyer and seller can agree to trade in an open market.

Do you think a commodity can be an idea, a service, or must it only be a tangible "thing" as you understand things to exist?

I have to say that for an economist, you sure have an odd way of viewing commodities and market exchanges. When you argued that corporations don't purchase (and consequently own) employees' labor, I became very confused of your notion of commodities and free exchange.

Hopefully you'll answer these questions so we can make sure we are using the same definitions and assumptions.

Please don't waste my time if you aren't going to read my replies.


I can live with that.

Your first sentence was fine, you probably should have left it at that. Even if there is a "real" definition of capitalism, only you believe you have a monopoly on knowing it.

Don't worry about it smooth. I won't "waste your time" any more. As stated you and I live in completely different worlds and there's no chance that we can find common ground on this (or likely other) issues.

Harmless Rabbit, crack laws were not written to target the poor. They were written to target crack users and dealers. You can throw out individual cases of money buying better representation but it doesn't mean the only way you get "fair" representation is by having money. And FWIW, the police work and prosecution in the OJ case were pathetic and plenty of lawyers not on the "Dream Team" could have picked the case apart. Additionally, press coverage was a big factor and there are plenty of cases that get press coverage even though the defendant is poor.

If you'd like to start a thread about it feel free since Smooth has already done a hell of a job hijacking this discussion about campaign finance reform and the obvious intention of the political parties to bypass all regulation of their influence peddling.