Help me understand McCain-Feingold

[NeBlis]

Specifically why people don't like it. I have heard disparaging comments by Neo-Cons mostly but I get the feeling allot of people don't like it.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Specifically why people don't like it. I have heard disparaging comments by Neo-Cons mostly but I get the feeling allot of people don't like it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It restricts freedom of speech and is unconstitutional. Good enough?

It protects incumbents the most.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
It restricts freedom of speech and is unconstitutional. Good enough?

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah i get that this is the argument but WHY and HOW does it do this?

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It restricts freedom of speech and is unconstitutional. Good enough?

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah i get that this is the argument but WHY and HOW does it do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people believe giving money to a campaign to be freedom of speech. Therefore by restricting campaign finance, freedom of speech is restricted.

The bill exists because a different group of people do not believe donations to be freedom of speech but rather action, and actions can be legislated under the present government. The idea behind the bill is to keep donations lower, since donations teeter on the idea of bribery to these people.

Of course, the bill is not perfect and has created some specific loop-holes, of which I am not an expert. But more detail is probably on wikipedia.

[AlexM]

1. It's unconstitutional. Nowhere is the federal government given the power to regulate this, so by the Tenth Amendment...

2. Even ignoring that, it's unconstitutional by the First Amendment, restricting free speech. Campaign contributions are as much "speech" as flag burning.

3. It unfairly favors incumbents. Incumbents don't need to get their message out nearly as much as challengers.

4. It unfairly favors the "big two" parties. A single rich person who wants to donate a lot can simply donate to a bunch of different Republican or Democratic candidates if that's who they support, but someone who wants to finance say the Green Party would be better off simply making one large donation to one candidate who has a slightly less awful chance of winning. This law helps keep third parties down.

Of course, the Neo-Cons likely have entirely other reasons. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[4 High]

This was the bill that came about due the 96 Campaign donation scandal?

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea behind the bill is to keep donations lower, since donations teeter on the idea of bribery to these people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is to help secure their positions in power. What you're talking about is just the sales pitch.

[pokerbobo]

Other than restricting "free speech" by limiting amounts that can be given by individuals to candidates, the govt addressed the non problem and created a new one.

Orgaanizations such as MoveOn.org and many others on both sides are being showered with money. people like George Soros can pour millions and millions thru this funding loophole.

End result is campaign finance reform was intended to limit money in politics, because money bought influence, but in fact it led to more money going into politics. The left has a few big Soros types running the show now. Soros has effectively bought a portion of the dem party and is pulling the strings of the far left politicians. These politicians on the far left are much of the leadership, as the last election brought in mostly moderate dems. These first termers are pressured by leadership though..... conversations go something like "welcome to DC, glad to have you, congrats on your victory. Sit down and I'll tell you what to do for the party if you want to win your next term."

Similar things go on on the right I'm sure, but I am not aware of any high profile multi billionaire such as Soros running funds thru multiple websites and corporations.

I'm not sure which far left website it was, but not too long ago, there was a piece posted about how the party was thiers. (meaning the group of websites) They had bought and paid for it, and that the millions spent to gain control in 06 for the dems would lead to pressure being put on the leadership in DC to move waaaaay left.

This will be the legacy of McCain Feingold.... unelected people pouring millions into elections and demanding an agenda. (to a far greater extent than previously)

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It restricts freedom of speech and is unconstitutional. Good enough?

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah i get that this is the argument but WHY and HOW does it do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

One area where it is clearly unconstitutional is in the timing of probihited political advertizing. An ad that is permited 61 days previous to an election could be prohibited 59 days before the election, depending upon its source of funding and issue.