The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - Campaign Finance Ruling Gives GOP Edge

December 11, 2003

Command Post 2004 Polls | Campaign Finance Ruling Gives GOP Edge

Dec 10, 5:21 PM (ET)

By SHARON THEIMER

* * *

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress.

Democrats will have to try to make up the difference through outside groups exempt from most of the new restrictions.

Several Democratic-leaning groups are already in action, raising millions in corporate, union and unlimited "soft money" donations that the national parties can no longer accept under the new law.

With an eye toward unseating President Bush and taking control of Congress, they plan to finance the get-out-the-vote drives and political issue ads that their party has underwritten in the past with large soft money checks.

Republican activists had largely held off on forming new outside groups, waiting to learn the law's fate while the GOP and Bush built a commanding advantage in raising the limited donations permitted under the law. With the justices' ruling, Republicans are now aiming to match the Democratic soft-money groups dollar-for-dollar.

"If the other side is going to raise tens of millions of dollars in soft money and if the Supreme Court says it's OK to spend that on political activity, then we would be foolish not to play by the same rules," said Frank Donatelli, a GOP consultant and co-founder of Americans for a Better Country, a pro-Bush group. The group is vetting its plans with the Federal Election Commission before going ahead.

Meanwhile, congressional and presidential candidates and the national political parties must abide by the new restrictions that took effect after the 2002 elections and have now been upheld by the high court after months of legal uncertainty. The law lets candidates collect twice as much from each individual donor - $2,000 - as they could in the last election.

"It has forced elected officials to reach out to more people for smaller contributions," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., a sponsor of the campaign finance law who along with his colleagues must run for re-election next year.

Republicans have long raised more than Democrats in so-called hard money donations, which come from individuals and political action committees and are limited in size. But Democrats made a push in the 1990s to narrow the gap by raising corporate and union donations aggressively. The GOP also raised lots of soft money.

With that gone, Republicans enjoy an instant advantage.

The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House counterparts together raised $173 million in hard money through the first 10 months of the year, compared to just $75 million for the three national Democratic committees.

Bush has already raised more than $100 million for his re-election, compared with the top Democratic presidential fund-raiser, Howard Dean, who had about $25 million at the end of September.

"Today's ruling breaks the Democrats' back," National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds boasted.

* * *

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce says it will spend on phone banks and direct mail, among other activities. The AFL-CIO has said the law won't prevent it from spending millions trying to get its members to the polls.

The National Rifle Association plans to ask each of its 4 million members to give at least $20 to its political action committee, money it could use for direct candidate support, including ads calling for candidates' election or defeat.

"It's not going to shut us up," NRA executive director Wayne LaPierre said of Wednesday's ruling. "And we're up to the task, so stay tuned."

But with the legal issues now settled by the Supreme Court, the big test of the new system will occur with the new outside soft money groups that are cropping up.

"I think it clearly underscores the need to do what we're doing," said Harold Ickes, a former Clinton White House official who has formed one such group called the Media Fund which intends to raise $10 million to help elect Democrats next year.

* * *

Link to story.

Posted by nikita demosthenes at December 11, 2003 03:25 AM | TrackBack

Comments

This is an abomination. Where are the leftys today? This is what you should be screaming about, guys. You guys want to talk suppression of dissent? Here it is: Not being able to publicly criticize a candidate 30 to 60 days before an election?

Guess freedom of speech only applies if you’re a pornographer, tobacco company executive, or on a Music Awards show.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 11, 2003 08:07 AM

jm,

You are right. Congress needs to rewrite this, but they won’t. Don’t depnd on SCOTUS to bail you out. I am hot at W for this.

10 years from now it is going to be a monster.

Posted by: jones at December 11, 2003 01:20 PM

Im sorry, I don’t see where it says that you can’t criticize a canidate 30 to 60 days before an election. I agree with you JM that this ruleing by the supream court is wrong. I think a canidate should be able to recieve funds from any business they want. If a canidate beleives that a business is doing good for the country why can’t the business help them in the election process. Also how can we sit here and force big business to have health plans,fulfill minimum wages, and other such government restrictions on them, when we are dulling their voice to the canidates? This is an outrage, the supream court should have to force canidates to get out to the little guys? Canidates should do that with out being forced too. Also im not going to jump on the “im against bush band wagon” on this one.(unusual for me) Of course Bush is going to have more funding for this campaign this year, republicans only have one canidate to fund, while democrats have nine as of now. The real money will come for the Democrats after the primaries are over. I would seriously though like the infomation on the 30 to 60 day thing you were talking about johnny, i would be outraged if that was true.

Paulie

Posted by: paulie at December 11, 2003 06:54 PM

Paulie,

I should have been more specific; it doesn’t prohibit individuals, but rather organizations; however, it’s still a bad law, because the potential for abuse of this is breathtaking.

Anyway, here it is:

///First adopted as part of McCain-Feingold during the Senate’s February 1998 campaign finance debate, the Snowe-Jeffords amendment addresses the explosion of thinly-veiled campaign advertising funded by corporate and union treasuries. These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to “vote for” or “vote against” a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on “electioneering communications.” “Electioneering communications” are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. It would also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window.

The Snowe-Jeffords amendment permits 501©(4) non-profit corporations to make electioneering communications as long as they use only individual contributions (not corporate or union funds) and make certain disclosures. The amendment thus prevents unions or corporations from laundering funds through non-profits to make electioneering communications. ///

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 12, 2003 08:50 AM

And, as Kaus points out, non-incorporated organizations (which can still be 501c3 nonprofits) are not covered.

I find it ironic that the SC went on and on in its opinion about the silliness of people running ads that say “call George Bush and tell him to stop being a wanker” or “call the Prez and tell him he’s doing a great job” because they can’t say “vote for George” or “don’t vote for George.” Yeah, it’s silly - it’s silliness caused by Congress and by the SC’s refusal to enforce the First Amendment.

Now we’ll have even more silliness, in the form of shadow unincorporated associations, and ads that say “go vote against those guys that put us in a war in Iraq” or “go vote against those guys who want to kill babies - you know who they are - nudge nudge, wink wink.”

Why not just give EVERYBODY the same freedom of speech rights that CNN, the LA Times, Fox, and Andy Rooney all have. The right to say what the hell they want, when the hell they want, using the medium they want. In fact, I thought the Constitution said something about that…

Posted by: samuelv at December 12, 2003 11:24 AM