Definitely effective at cleaning up all that political smear...

By the way, this article is appearing on the forums as being written 4 hours in the future from now. Is there some quantum time effect going on?

This election is heinous in terms of under-the-table advertising.

It is preposterous to say that Micheal Moore's film doesn't amount to hundreds of millions of dollars in free anti-Bush smear for Kerry. The new Vote for Change concert tour is abominable.

...and that doesn't even touch on the millions and millions spent by PACs like MoveOn. Ex-Kerry staffers work for them, their ex-employees work for him, and we are supposed to pretend that they in no way promote anyone to vote for Kerry. At this stage in the election, what alternative do they offer? Nadar? Hardly, considering some of them are even working against him.

No, this is a huge, nasty hole that has to be patched. We have "equal time" and other laws in the US that regulate how polticians can "get the word out". It isn't enough to get up on stage and say "We can't tell you who to vote for, but we can tell you who to vote against." More hypocracy from the Democratic side, in the same old, tired, hippy guise of activism and free speech.

If Soros wants to go talk to people, if he wants to press palms for Kerry, he has that right. He has the right to "free speech", but he should not have the right to spend tens of millions of dollars to people who churn out unregulated propaganda to put Kerry in office.

What annoys me is that if I want to realistically participate in the electoral process I'm limited in how much I can give to a political candidate, which is heavily regulated but not limited in how much I can turn over to these sleazy 527s.

If you were as unscrupulous, you would register a makeshift software company as a PAC, amake a bunch of shareware programs, and give a percentage of each sale to yet another PAC, amounting to millions in individual contributions. That is what those Vote for Change concerts are doing. I wonder if everyone that goes to see Springsteen would approve of the fact that by buying a concert ticket they are making a poltical donation...

Sickening...

After the primaries, I can see no way that people can validate the idea that urging people to vote against Bush isn't urging them to vote for the other candidate...

I think they will change the law to shut the 527's down. I think a Republican group tried to get the FEC to declare them illegal earlier, but they didn't.

You guys realize that the 527s exist because McCaine purposely buil them in as a loophole, apparently thinking that they would help the republicans more than the democrats. Now that the opposite has turned out to be true, they're all out to shut them down.

The fact is that campaign finance reform that has occured so far is ridiculous, not because its to weak, but because its way to powerful.

First of all, everyone has to get over the existance of sleazy politics- its always been there, and it always will be. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't pay attention, because the day they figure that people aren;t paying attention is the day they'll stop- but don't count on that ever happening.

That said, the reason you get groups like moveon.org and the media fund and SBVT is that regualr donations are ridiculously regulated- you're not allowed to give more than $2000 to any candidate, and in doing so your name will be published on a list of donaters. This registration of political doners, created under the auspices of protecting the public by allowing them to know whos contributing money where, actually serves like a mob-type hitlist for the official that eventually gets elected and for the general public. Say you run a business and you donate to one candidate, then the other gets elected- they know that you're an enemy and can use your donation against you. The situation is even worse for private individuals- voting is supposed to be a private matter, and your vote is supposed to be kept completely anonymous- but when you donate money to one candidate and not others, it makes it pretty apparent who you voted for doesn't it!

Then theres the whole capping of donations to $2000- this incredibly anti-free speech law serves to help the major parties as they have the millions of members and can raise a large sum with small donations from all of them. For someone in a third party who's trying to get a messege out and might have a few people who want to donate large amounts of money, they're out of luck. They are forced to use 527s, but the catch-22 is that 527s can be in no way affiliated with any candidate. In other words, the restrictive laws actually encourage 527 organizations, and with real finance reform we could get rid of them- people would be able to just donate directly to candidates.

Furthermore, the democrats and republicans have built into the system ways that they can steal money from american taxpayers in order to finance their own campaigns. For example, that check-box that you can "choose" to check on your tax forms that supposedly allots a portion of your taxes towards a political party is not actually a real choice- the money does not come from your taxes buy directly from the tax pool, and even as less people have been checking that box year after year the dems and repubs just keep increasing the amount each check represents to compensate. Also, democrats and republicans steal your money in hosting their respective conventions- each of which have become multi-million dollar affairs- they all seem happy, but I'm certainly not because my tax dollars are paying for their paper hats and confetti and podium that moves up and down with the height of the current speaker.

Since federal matching funds and national convention funds are only available to parties that recieved at least 5% of the previous election's vote, it serves as yet another barrier for third partys to get anyone elected.

You guys realize that the 527s exist because McCaine purposely buil them in as a loophole, apparently thinking that they would help the republicans more than the democrats.

Knock, knock cwarsh:

The House early today approved long-stalled legislation aimed at squeezing special interest money out of politics, marking a critical step toward enactment of the most far-reaching overhaul of campaign finance laws in a quarter-century. The House vote to pass the bill was 240 to 189, with 41 Republicans joining all but 12 Democrats in supporting it.-Washingtyon post. Feb 14 2002

http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/WPcampaignFinance02_14_02.htm

The reforms were mostly supported by the Democrats, in fact I remember McCain getting criticized by his own party for that. Sure Bush didn't have to sign the act, but know one could have seen what would happen two years latter and McCain did later get the provision that the 527 must show who donated over I think over $200.

The whole thing started when it was discovered that the Chinese had donated millions to the DNC and Clinton Administration. I may not like the Bill and think it could be amended to close allot of loopholes, but it is better then having foreign governments donate mass amounts of money under the protection of the anti-disclosure rule. Now we only have one time foreign citizens like Ms. Heinz and Mr. Soros donating mass amount of personnel money to Campaigns/527s.

P.S. Clinton did return the money that investigators did find.

Saying that we have 527s because Presidential campaigns can't legitimately raise enough money is hogwash. Bush has raised 200+ million dollars. Kerry is close behind. Contrary to popular belief we actually had elections pre-television. We have public television accessable to everyone. If we wanted to run no-advertising campaigns based on debate and public oratory we could easily do so.

No, 527s in this campaign are there to do the dirty work. Kerry has lauded his campaign as spotlessly clean, while at the same time this has been the worst smear against an incumbant that I can remember. That, not lack of funds, is the reason.

Anyway, I believe *devoutly* that a television ad, however costly and well-produced, has *never* changed anyone's mind or earned a single vote. Disagree if you like, but that is my opinion.

P.S. as an example, Kerry had no intention of running ads for the next couple of weeks, conserving his money for the end-game. Instead, he is having to refute the claims of the Swift Boat Vets. In this case, the 527s are actually costing the other side money. In addition, they are causing us to go off-topic, and allow things to be said that wouldn't be addressed without them.

I don'tthink we'll ever have a no-advertising system, but I think we could really simplify the process by relying more on debate and public address. Heck, the only real speeches most citizens get if they don't watch C-Span is the convention addresses. For something as important as a Presidential debate, it seems like we could get get several Perot-style addresses in the course of an election from each candidate. Instead, we get 30 second soundbytes.

in my opinion, 50+% of the money spent on a campaign is wasted. Bumper stickers and TV ads never changed anyone's mind. Getting to know the candidates would certainly help a lot more.

while at the same time this has been the worst smear against an incumbant that I can remember.

I think Clinton might have been close with the antics around the Starr Report and its ilk, although admittedly the current campaign is worse and, if there's any evidence at all, it's largely not on the public record.

Anyway, I believe *devoutly* that a television ad, however costly and well-produced, has *never* changed anyone's mind or earned a single vote. Disagree if you like, but that is my opinion.

It's simple media analysis that most political ad campaigns aren't designed to make people do something. They're supposed to make people think about something. Say for example someone makes a series of ads about their particular stance on health. Most people won't take much notice of what the ad actually says, but they will probably end up thinking that health is an issue worth advertising about, so they might think about the various candidates' stance and might be led towards voting for the one they feel is strongest in that area. That's why most positive ads emphasise the strengths of the advertiser and negative ones emphasise weaknesses. The whole process is called agenda-setting, and can be explained far better in a media textbook. This is merely a hurried example.

"It's simple media analysis that most political ad campaigns aren't designed to make people do something. They're supposed to make people think about something. "

Semantics aside, I still believe that television ads don't get votes for anyone, whether it be through influencing peopel or making them think.

"I think Clinton might have been close with the antics around the Starr Report and its ilk,"

That was bad, granted,and a huge waste of taxpayer, not campaign, dollars, which is even worse. We had to pay for that, instead of people that voluntarily donated. That was more like war, honestly, between people already in power. This is more degrading, because it puts in question the basis of how we choose leaders to begin with. Sure, we can harass them once they are in office, but if we don't devoutly believe in the process of election it cuts very deeply into our confidence in government in general.

527's have to go. It is obvious that a "set of rules" governing anything-goes advertising isn't working. In my opinion we need some kind of set framework in place so that people can get to know candidates, know exactly what they claim to be and what they have done. Beyond that, it is all fluff.

The inexorable law of unintended consequences is expressing itself once again. Campaign finance reform is an oxymoron. Its intent was to make sure only the two major parties had any money at crunch time and to be sure they could stifle any troublesome citizens; it has succeeded at the former while failing at the latter.

The whole issue of how campaigns can or should be financed is tricky. There are definitely drawbacks to unfettered, unlimited direct contributions, but there are clearly drawbacks to trying to tightly constrain political speech. I have no solution to offer, but trying repeatedly to push back the part of the balloon that popped out with the last squeeze is going to go on forever. Like water finding its way to the sea, clever people will find a way around every obstacle we put in their path and there simply is no perfect solution.

On that happy note -

Cheers,
Daiwa

Finance reform law? whats that?or any other law for that matter?Money is what runs this country and the Media is the engine.How long has it been since we bitched out other countries for their political oppressions? What choices do we have here?
Two of the richest out of 300 million people that don't have a clue what its like for thousands who live on five fifty a mo.or less and millions more that work their asses off to break even. Just to make them feel better they'll flaunt another law[immigration] and allow in thirty million illegals.
My friends its time to make some Radical decissions while you still can. VOTE NADER IN AND LET BIG MONEY KNOW WE WANT OUR COUNTRY BACK.If not,in four more years there will likely be one party,[actually its here now] then lets see you change it.....charlie poore

ive recently found two sites that provide an incredible amount of information about soft money contributions, contributors, expenditures, linkages and political implications.  an article at one--publicintegrity.org--provides analysis and evolution of the current laws.  consider the following:

After the Republicans for Clean Air episode in 2000, Congress passed legislation requiring that 527 committees register with the IRS and report their finances on forms similar to those that federal candidates and committees file with the Federal Election Commission.

Because of their tax status, 527 committees offer some advantages to donors that aren't available to other political non-profits, including so-called social welfare organizations, known as 501(c)(4) organizations. Social welfare groups can conduct political activity, but it cannot be their primary goal, and contributions to such committees can be subject to other federal taxes, including the federal gift tax. But contributions to 527 committees are not subject to such taxes and the money can be used for nearly any political purpose save direct contributions to federal candidates.

There is one advantage that 501(c)(4) groups hold over 527 committees, from a donor's point of view: contributions are not disclosed anywhere. A 527 committee funded by the pharmaceutical industry, Citizens for Better Medicare, reorganized as a 501(c)(4) after Congress mandated disclosure. The committee's 527 filings before the switch show $8.9 million in spending, but only $55,000 in contributions, since most of the money was contributed before the disclosure bill became law.

for a list of the 2004 campaign major players, go here link and check out how many of those non-disclosed donor 501(c)(4) groups are listed.  

there's one more thing worth considering. collecting, tracking and maintaining all this data is now a function of the irs.  hopefully its going to eventually tie them up to the point where theyll have no time to mess with us

"Saying that we have 527s because Presidential campaigns can't legitimately raise enough money is hogwash. Bush has raised 200+ million dollars. Kerry is close behind."
-Think about how much they would have raised if people weren't limited to $2000! Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that people's legitimate rights to free speech should be curtailed, theres no good argument against uncapping donations, as well as ending federal matching funds and federal funding for political conventions.

"If we wanted to run no-advertising campaigns based on debate and public oratory we could easily do so."
-Yes we could do that now, but neither candidate wants to obviously because they're both spending millions on commercials.

"Anyway, I believe *devoutly* that a television ad, however costly and well-produced, has *never* changed anyone's mind or earned a single vote. Disagree if you like, but that is my opinion."
-ITs near impossible to change the mids of people who are already made up, its swing voters that they're after.