NationStates Jolt Archive

Depending on how you see things, this is either good or bad. My view is that the campaign finance laws are just a unnecessary restriction of the First Amendment freedom of speech that we are supposed to enjoy. Certainly the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act hones these restrictions to a fine edge.

Anyway, the maze of regulations surrounding the suppression of free speech are pretty complex. I'm sure the cost of compliance far exceeds any reasonable guess. And some organizations don't comply. Whether that's willingly or accidentally, these groups violate campaign finance laws.

That's where the FEC (http://www.fec.gov/press/press.shtml) steps in. In it's record first quarter ( sounds like a for-profit company, doesn't it? ), the FEC has raked in over $1.1 million. The first two quarters produced over $2.0 million in fines and other civil penalties. Most notable in Q2 was the $750,000 collection from the Democratic affiliate -- America Coming Together (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5555.html), for it's fundraising in 2004.

Now, let's add the insult to the injury. First, ACT should be able to raise and spend money however it wants. If our government decides that the activity should be illegal, let's stop it before it has a chance to affect elections. In other words, if we're going to enforce a stupid law, let's make it timely so the population can see how arbitrary, arcane, and asinine the law really is.

Now, let's add the insult to the injury. First, ACT should be able to raise and spend money however it wants. If our government decides that the activity should be illegal, let's stop it before it has a chance to affect elections. In other words, if we're going to enforce a stupid law, let's make it timely so the population can see how arbitrary, arcane, and asinine the law really is.


That'd hinge on a government agency making a sensible decision. They're not known for that.

I thought you were going to post about Hsu.

Fugitive from justice, felon, major contributor... ('http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu29aug29,0,2313285.story?coll=la-home-center')

WASHINGTON -- For the last 15 years, California authorities have been trying to figure out what happened to a businessman named Norman Hsu, who pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish.

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

Hsu, it seems, has been hiding in plain sight, at least for the last three years.

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

In addition to making his own contributions, Hsu has honed the practice of assembling packets of checks from contributors who bear little resemblance to the usual Democratic deep pockets: A self-described apparel executive with a variety of business interests, Hsu has focused on delivering hefty contributions from citizens who live modest lives and are neophytes in the world of campaign giving.

On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time. Hsu remembers the episode as part of a settlement with creditors when he also went through bankruptcy, Barcella said.


Has a lot of money - but where did it come from, and who did he give to? ('http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118835199704811801.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks')

Norman Hsu is one of the leading political fund-raisers in the country this year. In fact, many fund-raisers say he is one of a small handful of people capable of raising more than $1 million -- a major feat considering the maximum donation allowed by an individual for 2008 races is $4,600 per candidate.
[Hsu]
Norman Hsu, left, with Hillary Clinton at a fund-raiser for the senator in New York in 2005.

But longtime political donors are curious: "Who is Norman Hsu?" asks Robin Chandler Duke, a former ambassador and longtime supporter of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Until three years ago, Mr. Hsu never made a campaign contribution to a presidential candidate, according to federal election records. Now, though, several people involved in raising money for White House candidates say Mr. Hsu is a major player.

Many "HillRaisers" -- people who rustle up at least $100,000 for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- are dwarfed beside Mr. Hsu (pronounced "Shu"). Several people involved in Democratic presidential fund-raising say Mr. Hsu, an apparel executive, has raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of the top 20 Democratic fund-raisers in the country. The Clinton campaign doesn't disclose such details and declined to comment for this story.

Hmmm...

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal reported that a modest home in a middle-class San Francisco suburb, where the family of mail carrier William Paw resides, is listed as the address for many contributions to the Clinton campaign. Mr. Hsu once listed the home as his address, according to public records, and the Paws' donations closely tracked his.

I thought you were going to post about Hsu.

The Clintons really are besieged by Asians that raise money illegally. First Johnny Chung, then Mr. Hsu. One really begins to wonder if there isn't something systematic about it...

The Clintons really are besieged by Asians that raise money illegally. First Johnny Chung, then Mr. Hsu. One really begins to wonder if there isn't something systematic about it...

There wasn't anything systematic about the shipment of 450,000 Norinco semi-automatic versions of the AKM shipped from China to the US and let in to the US on a Presidential waiver of the Assault Weapons Ban, no...

You didn't mention this group was linked to Soros. That would make Soros up $999,225,000 on money unjustly made out of others. [/rant]

... Okay, this report from the FEC was confusing. How they claim that their campaign was clearly for one candidate over another. As far as I could tell it was just anti-Bush. I don't think ACT should be blamed for a political landscape that is prohibitive of any 3rd party.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070829act.shtml

I would like to know how federal spending limits are calculated though.

You didn't mention this group was linked to Soros. That would make Soros up $999,225,000 on money unjustly made out of others. [/rant]

... Okay, this report from the FEC was confusing. How they claim that their campaign was clearly for one candidate over another. As far as I could tell it was just anti-Bush. I don't think ACT should be blamed for a political landscape that is prohibitive of any 3rd party.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2007/20070829act.shtml

I would like to know how federal spending limits are calculated though.

See this is my problem with the FEC. Of course there groups are going to advocate one candidate over another! That's the whole point of an election! Earlier this year, there was a big collection from a pro-Republican group. They were accused of being for Bush and against Kerry.

That's the way it should be.

Even the "illegally" spent money evens out.

Why can't the government just stay out of politics!?

See this is my problem with the FEC. Of course there groups are going to advocate one candidate over another! That's the whole point of an election! Earlier this year, there was a big collection from a pro-Republican group. They were accused of being for Bush and against Kerry.

That's the way it should be.

Even the "illegally" spent money evens out.

Why can't the government just stay out of politics!?

Because government is politics? :confused:

Because government is politics? :confused:
Well, it shouldn't be. Color me idealistic.

Well, it shouldn't be. Color me idealistic.

*paints you in an idealistic color* :D

*paints you in an idealistic color* :D

I am truly surprised at the ambivalence toward a federal agency that is in charge of suppressing free speech. I am amazed that the same civil rights advocates, who are outraged every time a FiCA court is bypassed, are not outraged that a unelected department of the federal government can control political speech.

I thought you were going to post about Hsu.

Fugitive from justice, felon, major contributor... ('http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu29aug29,0,2313285.story?coll=la-home-center')



Has a lot of money - but where did it come from, and who did he give to? ('http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118835199704811801.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks')



Hmmm...
For Corneliu's Biggest Troll title.... A CHALLENGER APPEARS!

I am truly surprised at the ambivalence toward a federal agency that is in charge of suppressing free speech. I am amazed that the same civil rights advocates, who are outraged every time a FiCA court is bypassed, are not outraged that a unelected department of the federal government can control political speech.Whilst I don't agree with restricting political speech, I do agree with restricting people's ability to hire people to say things for them. That is, a candidate should not be able to drown out the opposition by buying up all the advertising space.

The agency should not restrict the amount of money spent of posters, flyers and anything concerned with the production of media. Nor should it restrict the amount of volunteers that a candidate or advocacy group can field. What it should restrict is the amount spent on advertising space, and salaries.

A political idea should spread because it has merit, not because it has backing from wealthy interest groups.

For Corneliu's Biggest Troll title.... A CHALLENGER APPEARS!

:confused: