Ruling on Campaign Finance Helps GOP

[Terri]

Ruling on Campaign Finance Helps GOP

NewsMax
December 11, 2003

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance 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.

Democrats Try to Undo Their Own 'Reform'

Several pro-Democrat 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.

More (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/11/122144.shtml)

[AZJen]

The Dems can't win unless they play dirty.

[jackbenimble]

I agree this ruling helps the GOP politically, but it is still a sad thing. I'd rather have lost this advantage and left the constitution intact.

Regards,
Jack

[Floridaguy]

Quote[/b] ]The Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress. I agree with Jack. It is not always the right thing to do just because something gives you an "advantage". I always disliked campaign finance reform, still do, and dislike any infringement on protected free speech. Ultimately, the path of campaign finance reform can only lead to rich people getting elected. As far as I know, there is no way anyone can stop somebody from using their own money to campaign for themself. So if the "non-wealthy" are restricted further and further on raising money, ergo, the rich or self-funded will win most important offices. This is a principle reason I never liked McCain. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tqrolleyes.gif *Like redistricting and other issues that give an advantage to the current party in power at any given time, laws passed for the moment are usually bad laws. The judges, Congress, the president, etc., need to pass laws from the standpoint of "what would the absolute worst person who might hold this office, or be affected by this law, do with that extra power? "

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif

[Terri]

I agree with you guys. Remember at the time everyone was sure that the Supreme Court would not allow a free speech infringement. Everybody was wrong.

[markinthedark]

In the '68 campaign Musky, (or maybe it was the other one) swore up and down that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was not aimed at confiscating the guns of honest citizens, now we have Finecrime's gun ban and that is exactly what it is.
The Koran says something about the camel's nose under the tent. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif