I listen to talk Radio every Morning and evening to and from my workplace. I switch between WLOB with Ray and Ted, to WGAN with Ken and Mike in the am. Evenings I get to hear Howie Carr, Sean Hannity, and occaisionally Bill O'Reilly if I happen to be stuck in traffic or am working late. These hosts keep me entertained and thinking about various topics of interest. Mostly though, I turn to these pundits for their particular views as concerns political issues. What I like about these shows is that they ask some pretty hard questions about some serious subjects.
For Example, Sean Hannity has been asking Supporters of Hillary Clinton this simple question:
" Name one thing Hillary has done or accomplished in her 8 years as a New York Senator?"
The answer is of course nothing, but the supporters continually reply with platitudes and rhetoric, never actually attempting to answer. I find it amusing and informative in the fact that so many people choose to support a Candidate without actually looking at what that candidate has done.
That being said, I must also state that I do not wholly agree with everything these shows promote or say. If I did I would simply be another Kool Aid drinker, as Mr. Hannity so dubs the fools who call his show without any facts or figures to back up their arguments. Which brings me to my topic.
Recently, many of the Hosts have been touting Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson as their candidates of choice. This in itself is not anything to be bothered by, but I found that one of their arguments faulty. It is one of the arguments used most frequently to discourage voters from casting their lot with John McCain. Yes you guessed it, I'm talking about McCain Feingold, or officially known as The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. This act is used like a dagger whenever one hears about John McCain and is used as a finish move of sorts in arguments. " What about McCain Feingold? " is bandied about so often I decided to look it up for myself to see why this law is so anathema to my Republican brothers. What I found surprised me a little.
As noted in McConnell v. FEC, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:
The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.
This act given the name McCain Feingold for it's two main sponsors, is something that is subject to great debate all over the country even now, 5 years after it was passed into law by President Bush. Some say it is Unconstitutional, others say it's faulty, and still others feel it too liberal. There are good points on both sides and I feel personally that the law is faulty, but what I found is that Senator John McCain was not alone in his support of the Bill. Many other Republicans also gave their blessing to the BCRA.
Senator Fred Thompson
Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads.
Vote on passage of H.R. 2356; Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (Shays-Meehan bill, House equivalent of McCain-Feingoldf bill). Vote to ban “soft money” contributions to national political parties but permit up to $10,000 in soft money contributions to state and local parties to help with voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. The bill would stop issue ads from targeting specific candidates within 30 days of the primary or 60 days of the general election. Additionally, the bill would raise the individual contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000 per election for House and Senate candidates, both of which would be indexed for inflation.
Reference: Bill HR.2356 ; vote number 2002-54 on Mar 20, 2002
Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations.
Vote to ban soft money donations to political parties and forbid corporate general funds and union general funds from being spent on issue ads. The bill would increase the individual contribution limit to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000.
Reference: Bill S.27 ; vote number 2001-64 on Apr 2, 2001
Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance.
Support of the campaign finance bill proposed by Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Feingold (D-WI). Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)53; N)47
Reference: Campaign Finance Reform Bill; Bill S. 25 ; vote number 1997-267 on Oct 7, 1997
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani
Giuliani is an ardent supporter of campaign finance reform as well. As he was contemplating a run for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani told Wolf Blitzer that he was a "very, very strong supporter of Campaign Finance Reform," adding that he'd been "a very strong supporter of McCain-Feingold for a long, long time now."
Source: Tom Bevan, "Deconstructing Giuliani", RealClearPolitics.com Aug 10, 2006
Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point on honesty
Debates on campaign finance reform miss the point. I favor it, but in the final analysis money will not make an honest man dishonest or a dishonest man honest.
In politics, there is an outcry whenever an officeholder who has received campaign contributions from a particular industry supports a position perceived as favorable to that industry. The implication is that, say, the tobacco industry's contribution "bought" the official's support or at least bought access. I would be the last to say it never happens, but much more common is a company choosing to support those it views as sympathetic to its interests. At any given moment in my administration, someone who supported me was angry because I didn't do what they hoped I would do. If they withdraw their support, you don't want them around anyway. There's no one thing you can do to establish the principle. All you can do is keep making decisions based on what you believe, and by your example, you will demonstrate your independence.
Govenor Mitt Romney
Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.
All of the Republican Primary candidates supported this bill Publicly at some point in their political careers. ( I could not find anything on Mike Huckabee's position on this subject). All of them stand by that support today except Mitt Romney, who like Hillary, takes a cameleon like approach to the issues, changing stances as the audience dictates.
Recently Gonenor Romney had this to say about Campaign Finance reform:
Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’”
A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”
My point is that if you are going to Villify one for support of a piece of legislation then you need to hold all the rest to the same standard. If the pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts use the BCRA as a sticking point for Republican party voters when speaking of McCain, I daresay they need to look a little closer to those they support. If Senator McCain is not a conservative because he worked on BCRA then I contend that Romney, Thompson, and Giuliani are no longer entitled to be call such either. Let's try to be honest ok? It is embarrassing to be subjected to such blatant bias from ones own team.
Slainte'
Blighter
No comments:
Post a Comment