Presidential Campaign Process

[eliminatedsprinter]

There are some good points to McCain/Fiengold and there some bad.
My original thoughts were related to Federal Elections.
What are the good points???
The good points are just the points that do the least harm (re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) The (easlly predictable) overall outcome of the the bill has been to limit the ability of newcommers to raise enough money to run against and challenge incumbants, that already have established campaign war chests. That is no doubt why it recieved "bipartisan support" even though it was written by one of each party's biggest nimrods.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

What are the good points???
The good points are just the points that do the least harm (re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic) The (easlly predictable) overall outcome of the the bill has been to limit the ability of newcommers to raise enough money to run against and challenge incumbants, that already have established campaign war chests. That is no doubt why it recieved "bipartisan support" even though it was written by one of each party's biggest nimrods.
Here is the first one that caught my eye
Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the first one that caught my eye
Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates.
And that accomplishes what???:idea:They are in fact forbidden to run ads that feature the candidates names, faces, or voting records etc within 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days prior to a general election. How is banning organizations and advocacy groups from spreading their views on candidates, or the candidates records re their issues, not a direct infringement on political free speech???
Does this not also help insulate incumbant legislators from being held accountable for their positions on issues by industrial and or issue advocacy groups?
P.S. I could perhaps see some good coming from this, if they were banned from running ads that featured FALSE statements about candidates, but that is not the case with McCain/Fiengold. This tells me they cared more about protecting incumbancy than preventing corruption.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

And that accomplishes what???:idea:They are in fact forbidden to run ads that feature the candidates names, faces, or voting records etc within 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days prior to a general election. How is banning organizations and advocacy groups from spreading their views on candidates, or the candidates records re their issues, not a direct infringement on political free speech???
Does this not also help insulate incumbant legislators from being held accountable for their positions on issues by industrial and or issue advocacy groups?
P.S. I could perhaps see some good coming from this, if they were banned from running ads that featured FALSE statements about candidates, but that is not the case with McCain/Fiengold. This tells me they cared more about protecting incumbancy than preventing corruption.
Personally I don't see Restricting the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates, as being a bad thing.
Wouldn't advocating term limits be a more simple way of getting your point across?
This thread was started with hopes of people sharing positive ideas with regard to reducing corruption in DC. Imposing term limits across the boards, IMO, would help.

[eliminatedsprinter]

You keep using that term "electioneering ads". That is just a political catch phrase that only partly discribes a very small part of what that portion of McCain/Finegold actually does. It totally bans all organized groups of people from advertising their message re any specific politicians near election times. I don't care if you call it "electioneering" or a chicken sandwich, it is still political speech. And using the force of government to ban it, is far more dangerous than corporate money ever could be.....

[eliminatedsprinter]

I very very weakly support state legislative and local government term limits. I like them in theory, but here in Ca, they have done little if any good. We just keep recycling the same schlubbs from office to office and the wheeling and dealing for campaign funding etc (ie pay to play) seems to have perhaps, gotten even worse, than it was before.
P.S. I strongly support term limits for President and Governors. It is very important to any fedederal republic that both the state and national executive branches frequently peacefully transfer power from individual to individual. It is something that keeps us from having de facto dictators (even elected ones).

[ULTRA26 # 1]

You keep using that term "electioneering ads". That is just a political catch phrase that only partly discribes a very small part of what that portion of McCain/Finegold actually does. It totally bans all organized groups of people from advertising their message re any specific politicians near election times. I don't care if you call it "electioneering" or a chicken sandwich, it is still political speech. And using the force of government to ban it, is far more dangerous than corporate money ever could be.....
Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."
I have yet to see the good in any actual practice.
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here. It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.

[eliminatedsprinter]

Here is the paragraph from which the comment came.
Section-by-Section Summary of McCain-Feingold
The "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001" passed the Senate 59-41 on April 2, 2001. The legislation-known as "McCain-Feingold" after its co-sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI)-would ban soft money contributions to national parties; increase individual hard money contribution limits; and restrict the ability of corporations (including non-profit corporations) and labor unions to run "electioneering" ads featuring the names and/or likenesses of candidates. It also would redefine regarding what constitutes coordination between candidates and outside groups, require broadcasters to offer candidates the lowest available advertising rates, and permit candidates who face self-financing opponents to raise campaign funds in excess of the current limits. Each provision is examined and summarized below.
Reporting Requirements (sec. 103)
National party committees (and any of their subordinate committees) and certain other types of political committees are required to file reports with the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") regarding their federal election activity. This section also abolishes the building fund, which was created to manage some soft money expenditures.
Electioneering Communication: Restrictions on Corporations and Labor Unions (sec. 203)
Corporations and labor unions are prohibited from running or indirectly financing electioneering communications identifying or targeting a federal candidate within 60 days of a general election. Only a corporation or labor union's registered PAC may fund such activities with hard dollars.
Here are a couple more for you rip up.
Please remember that I said "some good and some bad."
I have yet to see the good in any actual practice. What problem has the above solved? Has political advertising become any more accurate, informative, or honest since McCain/Fiengold was passed??
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here. It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable, by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said, I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule, I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I have yet to see the good in any actual practice.
I know I'm seeming to be a bit defeatist here. It's just that whenever government power is used to restrict or limit political expression it will have unintended (or perhaps sneaky intended) consequences. The main side effect of McCain/Fiengold has been that it has made incumbant legislators less accountable by preventing people and groups that have the money to advertise their record from doing so. Like I said I have no problem with banning anyone from running FALSE ads against candidates. But for some reason that is not a part of McCain/Fiengold.
No system is perfect. However, as a general rule I prefer the imperfections of freedom over those of government restriction, esp when it comes to political expression.
Understood.