CFR has passed -- Thank You!

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Finally!

After years of tilting at the windmill, CFR was signed into law this morning by President Bush – who promptly went out to raise money.

Kudos to Sen. McCain & Sen. Feingold, and Cgr. Meehan & Cgr. Shays for providing the needed leadership to drive this bill past the Delay’s, procedural chicanery and dark times that beset this bill. Alternately thrilling and depressing, it moves me to see that change, albeit however limited, can be effected in our Nation’s Capitol.

To those who say CFR won’t have any impact, I say bollocks. Check the force and money that the opposition used to kill it. Talk to the political consultants, and the fund raisers. They’ll tell you, it takes a big weapon out of their arsenal when they can’t get single checks from the Richard Mellon Scaife’s of the world.

It’s not a perfect bill, but it closes many of the loopholes, grown in the back rooms of Washington, where the only voices heard are the lobbyists. Yet we must remain watchful of those that purport to work for us, lest they again forget whom they work for and begin to allow corruption’s creep to return.

I personally look forwards to the day when the equality of man is restored from the current inequality of the checkbook. If, as Mitch McConnell says, an important voice of the populace was stilled, I say to him: Where does it say that 1% of the populace should have 80% of the speech?

Let me go further: Our nation deserves federally funded (clean) elections; the charge for continuing use of our airwaves should free campaign advertising.

These changes would: allow our elected officials to be freed from the Sysyphusean tasks of fund-raising and campaigning; greatly increase the quantity and quality of our elected representatives, and in turn, would allay the cynicism and defeatist mentality that saps public interest in politics.

This has been a long jeremiad. A heart-felt thank you to everyone who helped along the way, by your calls to congressmen and senators and your words of encouragement.

-Ace0Spades

[andros]

. . . and what will you say if the Supreme Court invalidates it?

[Esprix]

Above all things I believe in links. Links are like oxygen. Links are a many-splendored thing. Links lift us up where we belong. All you need aer links! The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to link and be linked in return.

Esprix

[lno]

*Originally posted by Esprix *
Above all things I believe in links. Links are like oxygen. Links are a many-splendored thing. Links lift us up where we belong. All you need aer links! The greatest thing you’ll ever learn is just to link and be linked in return.

Cite?

[sub]ha! I slay me.[/sub]

[sub]I guess it’s true. Simple minds, simple pleasures…[/sub]

[Vic_Ferrari]

The NRA and the ACLU on the same side? CFR is so dead!

Here’s a link for you, Esprix.

[obfusciatrist]

*Originally posted by Ace0Spades *
**These changes would: allow our elected officials to be freed from the Sysyphusean tasks of fund-raising and campaigning; greatly increase the quantity and quality of our elected representatives, and in turn, would allay the cynicism and defeatist mentality that saps public interest in politics.
**

How will it do those two things?

Having to rely almost solely on directly solicited contributions (capped at $1,000 per contributor) is going to increase the need to fundraise, not lessen.

Having to rely almost solely on directly solicited contributions (capped at $1,000 per contributor) is going to vastly increase the power of incumbents or opponents with built in name recognition. When neither party support or large individual direct contributions are available, I don’t really see minor candidates or small parties having even the same chance they have now.

Besides, it is abhorrent to me that the government has informed me that I am only allowed to provide a certain miniscule level of support for my political positions (unless I am willing to run for office myself).

[jayjay]

*Originally posted by obfusciatrist *
**Besides, it is abhorrent to me that the government has informed me that I am only allowed to provide a certain miniscule level of support for my political positions (unless I am willing to run for office myself). **

So…how do you propose to end the virtual plutocracy we’ve got now? Or do you believe that a man’s worth should be based on his income? You don’t, from your posting history, seem like the kind of naive idealist that just can’t imagine a gasp politician being influenced by the people who give him/her the most money.

jayjay

[catsix]

And, obfuscationist, don’t forget that you can now no longer take out an issue ad yourself if you so choose near the time of an election.

[Vic_Ferrari]

*Originally posted by jayjay *
**So…how do you propose to end the virtual plutocracy we’ve got now? **

I know! Let’s restrict organizations’ ability to express their political beliefs! That’ll fix everything!

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

obfusciatrist, you make compelling arguments:

Having to rely almost solely on directly solicited contributions (capped at $1,000 per contributor) is going to increase the need to fundraise, not lessen.

This is true, because we all now if senators don’t raise $50 million nobody will get elected and Washington will collapse. Or worse, they’ll have to be elected on the issues, and the debates instead of the attack ads.

Having to rely almost solely on directly solicited contributions (capped at $1,000 per contributor) is going to vastly increase the power of incumbents or opponents with built in name recognition. When neither party support or large individual direct contributions are available, I don’t really see minor candidates or small parties having even the same chance they have now.

We all agree with you, it’s terrible how the Corporations and Unions give huge soft money checks to the Green Party to facilitate their machinations. Damn you Ralph Q. Nader! Damn you to Hell!

Besides, it is abhorrent to me that the government has informed me that I am only allowed to provide a certain miniscule level of support for my political positions (unless I am willing to run for office myself).

You think you’re annoyed? I have only that miniscule level known as “voting”. Tell you what. Send me a check, and I’ll vote your slate – Call it supply-side Democracy.

[obfusciatrist]

*Originally posted by Ace0Spades *
**obfusciatrist, you make compelling arguments:
This is true, because we all now if senators don’t raise $50 million nobody will get elected and Washington will collapse. Or worse, they’ll have to be elected on the issues, and the debates instead of the attack ads.
**

Of course people will still be elected. The table will just be tilted even more towards incumbents.

**
We all agree with you, it’s terrible how the Corporations and Unions give huge soft money checks to the Green Party to facilitate their machinations. Damn you Ralph Q. Nader! Damn you to Hell!**

I agree with you. Corporations and Unions should not be allowed to participate in the political process. They are not allowed to vote, they should not be allowed to make contributions to politicians or political parties.

What does that have to do with me, a real human being? If it weren’t for contribution limits, I suggest that Ralph Nader would have been an even larger condidate in the last election, and strong candidacies from outside the party system would be more frequent.

**
You think you’re annoyed? I have only that miniscule level known as “voting”. Tell you what. Send me a check, and I’ll vote your slate – Call it supply-side Democracy. **

So, we are all to be made economically equal? Why don’t we just limit campaigns, by law, to speeches in town squares. Sadly, there would be inequality in volume capabilities, so we would have to legislate how loud people can talk.

To me, though, the worst thing about CFR finally passing is that the next step for the stupids is going to be publicly financed campaigns (when small parties see their power dwindle further, they are going to want the government to give them a crutch). This is an idea beyond stupid that I have seen too many people espouse as the solution to the problems brought on by CFR.

[obfusciatrist]

*Originally posted by jayjay *
**

So…how do you propose to end the virtual plutocracy we’ve got now? Or do you believe that a man’s worth should be based on his income? You don’t, from your posting history, seem like the kind of naive idealist that just can’t imagine a gasp politician being influenced by the people who give him/her the most money.

jayjay **

1. Remove on limits on campaign contributions and other political activies.

2. Limit participation in the political process to only those entities allowed to vote. No unions, no PACs, no corporations, no non-profits, no foreign nationals, no foreign governments, no animals, no government agencies (matching funds).
   But while the system may be broken (and I think it is debateable just how broken it is), punishing legal and necessary activity to prevent improper activity is not acceptable to me. No more than if spoons were outlawed to prevent their use in murders.

Yes, some people buy access; I have no problem with that. Some people buy votes; that is illegal - punish it. If we limit contributions to individuals, most money will support positions rather than positions supporting money.

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

To me, though, the worst thing about CFR finally passing is that the next step for the stupids is going to be publicly financed campaigns (when small parties see their power dwindle further, they are going to want the government to give them a crutch). This is an idea beyond stupid that I have seen too many people espouse as the solution to the problems brought on by CFR.

I can only hope that we quickly move beyond stupid – before the Green Party forces us to have publically financed campaigns, as they insiduously have in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Arizona. Arizona! Clearly, the citizens of those states who voted for, and approve of the Clean Elections, have been brainwashed by Nader’s machismo and rippling abs.

[obfusciatrist]

So we are agreed on the stupidity of publicly financed elections? Good, I didn’t think you’d be so reasonable.

[Vic_Ferrari]

*Originally posted by obfusciatrist *
**So we are agreed on the stupidity of publicly financed elections? Good, I didn’t think you’d be so reasonable. **

I’ve discovered that despite his intimidating name, AceOSpades is actually quite reasonable and usually ends up coming around once everything’s laid out in a rational manner. It’s quite comendable if you ask me.

[pkbites]

*Originally posted by andros *
**. . . and what will you say if the Supreme Court invalidates it? **

If? IF?? What do you mean, IF?

S.C.O.T.U.S. is going to kick the living shit out of that unconstitutional law. And their ruling is going to be thorough, so thorough it may prevent many future laws like it. Hell, while they’re at it they may even give past campaign finance laws a thrashing. And more power to them!!

What the mother fuck is wrong with GW anyway?

[erislover]

*Originally posted by obfusciatrist *
To me, though, the worst thing about CFR finally passing is that the next step for the stupids is going to be publicly financed campaigns.

That’s a public office they are running for. But I agree that strict public funding isn’t a very good idea.

[andros]

obfus:

Limit participation in the political process to only those entities allowed to vote

That’s the second time you’ve used that espression. What precisely do you mean by it? Surely you don’t mean to curtail lobbying?

pkbites:

S.C.O.T.U.S. is going to kick the living shit out of that unconstitutional law.

:shrug: Maybe. While I respect your vehemence, I don’t think it’s nearly as certain as you’d like.

[obfusciatrist]

*Originally posted by andros *
That’s the second time you’ve used that espression. What precisely do you mean by it? Surely you don’t mean to curtail lobbying?

Thank you for catching that. It was poor word selection on my part. I guess “election process” would be more appropriate to what I mean.

[Narile]

*Originally posted by obfusciatrist *
**

Of course people will still be elected. The table will just be tilted even more towards incumbents.

I agree with you. Corporations and Unions should not be allowed to participate in the political process. They are not allowed to vote, they should not be allowed to make contributions to politicians or political parties.

**

And why not? Corporations and unions also have a vested interest in how the goverment is run, and should have a voice. If your problem is that corporations and unions have a much greater voice than the common people, don’t outlaw their contributions, require full disclosure. As it is, if you do outlaw a union or corporation from contributing, all you will do is drive it under the table.

**
What does that have to do with me, a real human being? If it weren’t for contribution limits, I suggest that Ralph Nader would have been an even larger condidate in the last election, and strong candidacies from outside the party system would be more frequent.

**

Here I kind of agree with you. My actions here would be to again, require full disclosure, no campaign limits, and no public funds used in campaigning. As it stands, with the CFR bill, we are one step closer to a monopolistic govermental system. And when you have an enviroment without competition, everyone suffers.