The latest Bush meme: "the Dem 527s are accusing us of poisining pregnant women"

[Desmostylus]

In other words, no.

But Hentor, it’s not necessary to examine or refute the story. Liberal’s position is still ridiculous even you accept the story 100%.

@Liberal

Where is MoveOn’s ad suggesting that Clinton was responsible for sick babies?

I guess it’d be stashed away with their ads attacking Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. You know, the ones they prepared just in case any of those guys happened to be running for President.

Besides which, no matter how good or bad Clinton may have been, the fundamental point is that Bush is actively making things worse.

EPA’s Mercury Lingo Altered
CBSNEWS
WASHINGTON, April 7, 2004

The EPA proposal would ease limits envisioned by the Clinton administration, while requiring immediate action in some cases.

In 2001, EPA estimated that mercury could be cut by as much as 90 percent, to 5.5 tons, by 2008 if the best available technology were used as the Clinton EPA had hoped, according to EPA documents obtained by advocacy group National Environmental Trust.

But the White House and EPA want to let utilities meet mercury pollution limits the first six years using the benefits of controls installed for other pollutants that cause smog and acid rain.

The Clinton administration listed mercury as a “hazardous air pollutant.” The Bush administration would undo that by placing mercury into a less strict category of the Clean Air Act, which will allow companies to buy and sell pollution rights with other plants under a “cap-and-trade” system.

This approach, EPA says, would eliminate about 14 tons a year of mercury emissions from the currently unregulated 48 tons a year generated by coal-fired power plants. Such plants account for about 40 percent of the nation’s mercury pollution.

After that, the pollution-trading proposal would cut an additional 19 tons a year of mercury emissions, EPA says. The result would be a 70 percent reduction — from 48 tons to 15 tons — by 2018, the agency says.

Basically, an extra ten years to achieve a result three times worse. Of course, the solution proposed by fucking idiotic libertarians like Liberal would be to repeal all environmental legislation.

[Apos]

I think the real story is that when people use money to fund ads, Kerry fights back by trying to argue his side and demanding that the authors of the ads apologize and stop doing it. In other words, fights speech with more speech. Bush’s response is just to ban speech entirely (althought, it is something he knows will never happen, especially since he opposed it back in the day when he thought it was Republican groups that would benefit!)

[Liberal]

Actually, I think that might be a misrepresentation of Bush’s position, at least according to what Senator McCain said yesterday on Face the Nation. He said that what he and Bush want is for the FEC to hold 527’s to the same laws they hold everyone else. He said repeatedly that no one is calling for suppression of speech, but merely equitable application of existing law.

Here’s the transcript: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_082904.pdf

Here’s an excerpt, McCain speaking:

Yeah. I say, `Shame on you, Mr. Soros, and shame on all of the people who are funding these, both from the Republican side as well as the Democrat side. And we’re not trying to shut you up. We’re saying live by the same rules.’ In other words, the hard money that funds my campaign.

And the thing that’s bad about it, as you mentioned about court, we have a Federal Elections Commission which is disgraceful and despicable in its conduct. And, you know, we talk about a, quote, “commission.” I’d like to give you a couple of names and faces. Ellen Weintrob, who has become a Democrat apparatchik, Bradley Smith who is so far right wing, he doesn’t believe in campaign finance reform and should resign because he refuses to-- they’ve refused to enforce the law. We’ve got to reform the Federal Elections Commission.

[Liberal]

Incidentally, for anyone interested who has read the Chihuahua’s post, I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

He said that what he and Bush want is for the FEC to hold 527’s to the same laws they hold everyone else. He said repeatedly that no one is calling for suppression of speech, but merely equitable application of existing law.

What a load of fucking crap.

What is a 527 Organization?

According to the IRS, a Section 527 (§527) organization is an organization that is created to receive and disburse funds to influence or attempt to influence the nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates for public office.

Differences from PACs On the face of the above definition, a §527 Organization sounds like a PAC. In effect that is what a §527 organization is—a PAC by another name. However, there is one key difference, a §527 organization does not fall within the regulator realm of the Federal Election Commission and therefore it is not subject to the same limits as FEC regulated PACs.

Often called “soft money” PACs or organizations, a §527 organization is permitted to accept contributions in any amount from any source. However, the organization is required to make regular reports to the Internal Revenue Service of its funding and expenditures.

Regulatory Structure Unlike PACs regulated by the Federal Election Commission, a §527 organization is governed by the rule in §527 of the Internal Revenue Code (hence the name). This section of the Internal Revenue Code has many of the same basic requirements as the FEC regulations, including registration and regular filing schedules.

A clue for the cluess. SBVFT is a 527. It’s not regulated by the FEC. The FEC can’t regulate it, the FEC isn’t allowed to. MoveOn is a PAC. The FEC does regulate it.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Liberal

Incidentally, for anyone interested who has read the Chihuahua’s post, I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

Do you think that the government should be prevented from requiring corporations that pollute to clean up after themselves? Should businesses be required to fund the Superfund, or should taxpayers dollars be used to clean up the messes left behind by corporate polluters?

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

I favor far more strict environmental regulation than we have now. I advocate that government cease its own pollution, and that it not make politically expedient exceptions in the supression of pollution which, libertarianly speaking, is a form of vandalism and assault.

What a weasel. You only favor the transfer of the polluting function to something that isn’t called “government”. You aren’t really in favor of anything that would reduce pollution, just some nebulous concept of the enforcement of property rights. Voodoo.

[Liberal]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Do you think that the government should be prevented from requiring corporations that pollute to clean up after themselves? Should businesses be required to fund the Superfund, or should taxpayers dollars be used to clean up the messes left behind by corporate polluters?

Those who pollute should be forced to clean up their own messes. After all, they made them.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

What a weasel. You only favor the transfer of the polluting function to something that isn’t called “government”. You aren’t really in favor of anything that would reduce pollution, just some nebulous concept of the enforcement of property rights. Voodoo.

Desmostylus

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Liberal

Those who pollute should be forced to clean up their own messes. After all, they made them.

Excellent! I completely agree - even when it is the government that did the polluting.

[Captain_Amazing]

@Desmostylus

What a load of fucking crap.A clue for the cluess. SBVFT is a 527. It’s not regulated by the FEC. The FEC can’t regulate it, the FEC isn’t allowed to. MoveOn is a PAC. The FEC does regulate it.

Well, MoveOn is both a PAC and a 527. It’s really three organizations, MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy group, MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, and MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 educational organization. Here are the three websites:

MoveOn: People-Powered Progress

About MoveOn Political Action

moveonvoterfund.org

[Captain_Amazing]

And just to correct myself…it’s the 527 that’s an “issue advocacy” group…the 501©(4) is a “social welfare” group. It’s probably not the PAC that’s running the ads. I’d imagine their 527 is.

[roger_thornhill]

@Zoe

BTW, whichever rep from the Bush Campaign was on Wolf Blitzer on Friday night, August 27, he claimed that Michael Moore sat next to Theresa Heinz-Kerry during the Democratic Convention. Wolf had to correct him. He seemed not to want to be corrected, but Wolf Blizter told him that he was there and that MM sat next to the Carters.

Well, they might both have been right. Mikey might have been sitting next to Jimmy and Rosalyn and *on top of * Theresa.

[Liberal]

@Desmostylus

What a load of fucking crap.A clue for the cluess. SBVFT is a 527. It’s not regulated by the FEC. The FEC can’t regulate it, the FEC isn’t allowed to. MoveOn is a PAC. The FEC does regulate it.

McCain knows that, you dumbass — he’s a Senator. Did you even read the transcript?

“In other words, they should be hard money contributions, the same campaign contribution limitations that all of us have.”

“We’ve got to reform the Federal Elections Commission.”

“This–they–for three years they were supposed to enforce the law against 527s. Why? Because the law says any organization that engages in partisan political activity shall be governed by the same campaign finance laws. They refuse to enforce that.”

[Desmostylus]

@Captain Amazing

Well, MoveOn is both a PAC and a 527. It’s really three organizations, MoveOn.org, a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy group, MoveOn PAC, a federal PAC, and MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a 527 educational organization. Here are the three websites:

moveon.org
moveonpac.org
moveonvoterfund.org

Thanks, I didn’t know that. As it turns out, the ads the Pubbies were complaining about were actually from the Sierra Club’s 501(c)(3). This is more complicated than I’d been led to believe.

@Liberal

McCain knows that, you dumbass — he’s a Senator. Did you even read the transcript?

I see. Government is necessarily bad but politicians necessarily know what they’re talking about and tell the truth?

Something factual, which doesn’t depend on us taking your word or some politician’s word might be helpful at this point. What does the law actually call for?

[Liberal]

You pathetic dumbass. McCain was co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. If you want information on it, look it up.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

You pathetic dumbass. McCain was co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill, the so-called Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. If you want information on it, look it up.

I was kinda hoping you’d look it up. All I can come up with is stuff that makes you and McCain look like fucking idiots:

Everyone Was Wrong About McCain-Feingold!
We all missed a giant loophole in the law.

Here’s the wrinkle: It turns out the new law’s ban on last-minute ads only applies to corporations. True, most nonprofit “advocacy” groups—such as the Sierra Club and the ACLU—are corporations. But (and this is the point I didn’t understand) they don’t have to be. It’s perfectly possible to form a simple unincorporated association and still get nonprofit tax status. (You just have to show that your articles and bylaws meet IRS requirements.) And if you’re not incorporated, then McCain-Feingold’s ad ban doesn’t apply.

So what’s the story? McCain sponsored the bill, but was too stupid to know what the effects would be? McCain sponsored the bill, realised the unintended effects and did nothing about it? Bill Clinton’s blow-job prevented the Pubbies from submitting a new bill? What?

[Liberal]

Well, since you’re managing to stagger around somewhat on topic, and now that you finally have some idea what we’re talking about, the answer is yes, he failed to predict the unintended consequences, and now he finds himself in the position of complaining that — wait for it now, 'cause this is what you originally contradicted — there needs to be reform to cover the loopholes so that 527’s are held to the same laws as everyone else.

[Desmostylus]

@Liberal

Well, since you’re managing to stagger around somewhat on topic, and now that you finally have some idea what we’re talking about, the answer is yes, he failed to predict the unintended consequences, and now he finds himself in the position of complaining that — wait for it now, 'cause this is what you originally contradicted — there needs to be reform to cover the loopholes so that 527’s are held to the same laws as everyone else.

@Liberal

He said that what he and Bush want is for the FEC to hold 527’s to the same laws they hold everyone else. He said repeatedly that no one is calling for suppression of speech, but merely equitable application of existing law.

So which is it? Does he wants equitable application of the law that he wrote, or does he want to change it? If he wants to change it, why has this desire for change suddenly struck? And I’d still like to see you actually look up something factual about what the law says.

Or failing that, I’d like to see you say something, anything, sensible.

[Liberal]

McCain said, “This–they–for three years they were supposed to enforce the law against 527s. Why? Because the law says any organization that engages in partisan political activity shall be governed by the same campaign finance laws. They refuse to enforce that.”

http://www.citizen.org/congress/campaign/issues/nonprofit/articles.cfm?ID=11107

On February 18th the Federal Election Commission decided in a 4-2 opinion (the “ABC opinion”) that 527 groups, non-profit political organizations created to bypass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and funnel soft money into electioneering communications, will be subject to campaign regulations.

McCain is requesting that the FEC enforce its regulations.