[davesimondotcom]

How does the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law effect organizations like moveon.org, grassfire.org, etc.?

Does it effect them at all? Will the parties use these "independant" sources as ways of funneling money into cheapshot ads like they always run but without any responsibility behind them?

I ask because just this week I've seen the two "Bush = Hitler" ads that weren't "sponsored" by MoveOn.org but were made for their contest and put on their website. They also have an entire site (there is a thread already about this) with ads that were created by their members attacking President Bush.

I also have seen an ad attacking Howard Dean by a group calling themeselves "the Club for Growth." It features two older people calling Dean a "latte drinking, Volvo driving" lefty.

What do these ads have in common? They are aimed to be humorous to a particular group of people - either those far to the left or far to the right. But in the process they offend many in the middle.

These groups seem to be getting free air time for their ads by making the most controversial ads possible, putting them on the web or on one or two stations, then having the cable news talk about the "controversies" and play the ads over and over. (Similar to the way 1984 was only aired "once" - but really was aired thousands of times because it was so revolutionary.)

How does any of this IMPROVE the political process? It seems to me that it makes it worse, and fills it with vitriol and personal attacks instead of issue debates. It's like this forum only in the real world.

[Lerkfish]

negative attack ads work....unfortunately. Or, at least, the pundits and experts think they do. So, be prepared for tons of them this year, on both sides.

Since Bush has the larger war chest, I imagine his side will produce more of them, but that's just a guess.

On the one hand, I disapprove of using Hitler to criticize bush, because of the other nefarious things Hitler was involved in....but on the other hand, in terms of the "pre-emptively" invading other countries to reshape them....I think that's a valid comparison.

Knowing Rove, I'm sure we're going to see that and worse before this thing gets to Nov.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
negative attack ads work....unfortunately. Or, at least, the pundits and experts think they do. So, be prepared for tons of them this year, on both sides.

I fully expect them. Plenty of them. That wasn't my point though. I'm wondering, since McCain/Feingold was partially passed with limiting these attack ads as a "feature" how these particular groups (or their kind - the "independant" website/PAC/etc.) get around the finance laws.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Since Bush has the larger war chest, I imagine his side will produce more of them, but that's just a guess.

More or worse or more effective?

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
On the one hand, I disapprove of using Hitler to criticize bush, because of the other nefarious things Hitler was involved in....but on the other hand, in terms of the "pre-emptively" invading other countries to reshape them....I think that's a valid comparison.

Knowing Rove, I'm sure we're going to see that and worse before this thing gets to Nov.

It's fine to attack the policy behind something - like the Bush Doctorine of pre-emptive strikes. But don't you think it could be done in a less inflamitory, more informative matter?

I don't want to discuss the substance (or lack thereof) or validity of any particular ads here. I'm more interested in the way the groups who produce them get around finance laws and are used by the political parties.

I don't think anyone would argue that MoveOn.org is an independant group. It's essentially the internet wing of the Democrat party. And I'm sure there are similar sites for the Republicans (grassfire.org, Free Republic, etc.)

I'm asking basically - are these groups just ways to get around the new laws?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but on the other hand, in terms of the "pre-emptively" invading other countries to reshape them....I think that's a valid comparison.

It's not a "valid comparison." Hitler didn't "pre-mptively invade[] countries to reshape them" (your characterzation of the Iraq policy). There was no consideration of preemption there, it was wholesale conquest. He conquered countries, in many cases wiped them entirely off the map. In several cases incorporating territory directly into Germany. He enslaved the populations, rounded up and frequently murdered the political leaders, systematically rounded up Jews an Gypsies to exterminate them (or had local puppets do the rounding up for him). Others were treated just as badly. Slavs were enslaved, homosexuals rounded up and worked to death, and the disabled were exterminated.

That's utterly different. It does not resemble the Bush policy at all. You do your POV disservice by making any such comparison. You and those who agree with you can do better than that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's not a "valid comparison." Hitler didn't "pre-mptively invade[] countries to reshape them" (your characterzation of the Iraq policy). There was no consideration of preemption there, it was wholesale conquest. He conquered countries, in many cases wiped them entirely off the map. In several cases incorporating territory directly into Germany. He enslaved the populations, rounded up and frequently murdered the political leaders, systematically rounded up Jews an Gypsies to exterminate them (or had local puppets do the rounding up for him). Others were treated just as badly. Slavs were enslaved, homosexuals rounded up and worked to death, and the disabled were exterminated.

That's utterly different. It does not resemble the Bush policy at all. You do your POV disservice by making any such comparison. You and those who agree with you can do better than that.

um..no, I still think its a valid comparison for others to make, according the narrow definition I gave it... I'm not saying that *I* am making that comparison..and if you'd read my post, instead of just reacting to it, you'd have caught when I said,
"On the one hand, I disapprove of using Hitler to criticize bush, because of the other nefarious things Hitler was involved in"
You're bringing up the very items that I said I would disapprove of as a comparison....why, I don't know.

Hitler DID attack countries that had not provoked the invasion....preemptively. He DID reshape them according to his own vision of what they should be. In those two regards, I do think there is room for a valid comparison. the other items you brought up are the areas where I don't think its a valid comparison.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
I don't want to discuss the substance (or lack thereof) or validity of any particular ads here. I'm more interested in the way the groups who produce them get around finance laws and are used by the political parties.

my apologies. Ok, then, are you ok with other groups as long as they support Bush?
or are you against any and all regardless of who they support?

my feeling is that when this was discussed a while back, that many on the right side defended these groups as "free speech", because they were supportive of bush. But now, that a group appears to be against bush doing the same thing, it has you up in arms.

If its free speech for one side, its free speech for another side.
I personally would rather see campaign spending curtailed on all sides, but I don't think that will ever happen at this point, there's too much money and influence to be made and wielded, and the powerbrokers already in power are not likely to forego that without a fight. It's the old "you can't get there from here". Even if campaign finance laws are enacted, the power brokers will find end runs around them.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Hitler DID attack countries that had not provoked the invasion....preemptively.

No, not "preemptively." He invaded utterly without provocation. There is a difference. "Preemption" means before they do something to us. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, and so on were never even alleged to be threats to Germany.* He simply wanted their territory and resources (including their people as slaves in many cases), and he wanted Lebensraum.

It's just not a good comparison, even aside from the genocidal impulses that you recognize made it unique.


*There was one made-up incident where Germans dressed up in foreign uniforms to "attack" Germans. It was transparently fake. In reality, there was no attack, and no possibility of one. It was simply a campaign of conquest and fully understood as being no more than that. Hence Munich.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my apologies. Ok, then, are you ok with other groups as long as they support Bush?
or are you against any and all regardless of who they support?

I don't care who they support/attack. I'm just asking if they are simply a loophole to exploit in McCain/Feingold or if they are even addressed in the matter.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
my feeling is that when this was discussed a while back, that many on the right side defended these groups as "free speech", because they were supportive of bush. But now, that a group appears to be against bush doing the same thing, it has you up in arms.

Notice in my post I mentioned not only MoveOn.org's attacks against the President, but also a group's attacks against Howard Dean.

I WAS and AM against the limiting of free speech - especially political speech - and was against McCain/Feingold. I'm simply asking how anything has changed because of it's passing, since it seems these kinds of groups will be used by both sides as loopholes.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
If its free speech for one side, its free speech for another side.
I personally would rather see campaign spending curtailed on all sides, but I don't think that will ever happen at this point, there's too much money and influence to be made and wielded, and the powerbrokers already in power are not likely to forego that without a fight. It's the old "you can't get there from here". Even if campaign finance laws are enacted, the power brokers will find end runs around them.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth or not reading my post. I didn't say that one side or the other could do this or not do that. I asked if the sides were intending to use these groups as a loophole, and if it was even addressed in McCain/Feingold.

To me, what it seems is that these types of more "independant" groups will be running the attack ads - further distancing the candidates from the responsibility of the ads, adding basically another layer - Candidate ads, Party/PAC ads, "Independant Organizations" Ads.

I didn't attack the content. I didn't even say anything about whether MoveOn.org can/will/should run ads attacking whomever they wish.

I would rather see the restrictions lifted and have it be a free-for-all, at least then it would be out in the open, not funnelled through various groups.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, not "preemptively." He invaded utterly without provocation. There is a difference. "Preemption" means before they do something to us. Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, and so on were never even alleged to be threats to Germany. He simply wanted their territory and resources (including their people as slaves in many cases), and he wanted Lebensraum.

It's just not a good comparison, even aside from the genocidal impulses that you recognize made it unique.

(I'm pointedly ignoring how you keep bringing up slavery, lebenstraum, and genocide...which, again, were not part of my point)

we'll just have to disagree then.
Since we have found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, nor viable connections to 9/11, nor plans to attack the US, I stand by the comparison with Hitler attacking countries that were no threat. Simply because Bush manipulated data to make them appear a threat does not make them so. There was no provocation from Iraq.

but regardless, this is needlessly sidetracking Dave's fine thread. If you want to discuss this further, start another thread and I'll comment in that one.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Again, you are putting words in my mouth or not reading my post.

actually, neither. I'm commenting on the comments of others from the previous thread. When I say "some on the right" that does not necessarily mean you. In this case, it doesn't.

Apologies if it appeared otherwise.

My comments were obliquely on the topic itself, rather than on your specific post.

[davesimondotcom]

Like I said, guys, this isn't the place to debate the content or validity of such ads. I started this thread out of an honest curiousity about how these groups are effected (or not) by current campaign finance laws.

It seems as if they present themselves as "independant" - but are obvious extensions of the parties.

I didn't start it to attack MoveOn.org. The fact that I have brought them up at all is a complement to the fact that they have made an impact on the system. They are simply an example of one of these groups I'm discussing. Others exist on all sides.

But it seems to me, where an individual can only donate a certain amount to a candidate and/or a party, someone like George Soros can dump millions into a group like MoveOn.org and get just as much or more out of it - without dirtying the name of any particular candidate.

I uses Soros as an example because I know of his association with MoveOn.org and his vow to spend whatever it takes to unseat Bush. I'm sure there are Conservatives who will spend just as much to keep Bush in office.

I'm also not advocating shutting these types of speech down, limiting them or anything else. In fact, I think they should be free to make their points. I am not in favor of limiting free speech at all. Especially political speech.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[BI stand by the comparison with Hitler attacking countries that were no threat. Simply because Bush manipulated data to make them appear a threat does not make them so. There was no provocation from Iraq. [/B]

OK, you seem to have a definition of preemption that, well, odd. You seem to define preemption as an attack when there is nothing to preempt.

In any case, please keep making Hitler analogies in the next year, and please ask your friends to do the same. It's a great campaign boost for Bush.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, neither. I'm commenting on the comments of others from the previous thread. When I say "some on the right" that does not necessarily mean you. In this case, it doesn't.

Apologies if it appeared otherwise.

My comments were obliquely on the topic itself, rather than on your specific post.

Apology accepted. I just read it as intended towards me because it quoted me and referred to "you" several times.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Like I said, guys, this isn't the place to debate the content or validity of such ads. I started this thread out of an honest curiousity about how these groups are effected (or not) by current campaign finance laws.

It seems as if they present themselves as "independant" - but are obvious extensions of the parties.

I didn't start it to attack MoveOn.org. The fact that I have brought them up at all is a complement to the fact that they have made an impact on the system. They are simply an example of one of these groups I'm discussing. Others exist on all sides.

But it seems to me, where an individual can only donate a certain amount to a candidate and/or a party, someone like George Soros can dump millions into a group like MoveOn.org and get just as much or more out of it - without dirtying the name of any particular candidate.

I uses Soros as an example because I know of his association with MoveOn.org and his vow to spend whatever it takes to unseat Bush. I'm sure there are Conservatives who will spend just as much to keep Bush in office.

I'm also not advocating shutting these types of speech down, limiting them or anything else. In fact, I think they should be free to make their points. I am not in favor of limiting free speech at all. Especially political speech.

I'm sorry, I honestly don't know the parameters of what groups like MoveOn can do. There obviously are limits. Already, they have got introuble for soliciting campaign funds from abroad. That's improper.

As far as I understand it, they can do more or less what they like as long as they don't endorse a particular candidate. To me that is paper thin. How could MoveOn claim that once there is a Democratic nominee escapes me. On the other hand, it is private money.

I haven't yet read the enormous case that just came down on McCain Feingold, so I can't really comment more specifically. Sorry.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Apology accepted. I just read it as intended towards me because it quoted me and referred to "you" several times.

perfectly understandable. In rereading my own post, I can see where that came across. But that wasn't my intent. the first paragraph is asking your position (which you answered) the next paragraph involves general comments on the topic.
Where I misspoke is using "you" being up in arms. I meant that as a collective term to other people I was referring to, I guess.

at any rate, glad we got that cleared up.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry, I honestly don't know the parameters of what groups like MoveOn can do. There obviously are limits. Already, they have got introuble for soliciting campaign funds from abroad. That's improper.

As far as I understand it, they can do more or less what they like as long as they don't endorse a particular candidate. To me that is paper thin. How could MoveOn claim that once there is a Democratic nominee escapes me. On the other hand, it is private money.

I haven't yet read the enormous case that just came down on McCain Feingold, so I can't really comment more specifically. Sorry.

That's the problem I see with McCain/Feingold - other than my free speech objections which the courts didn't see - these types of groups will become the new political parties and not "endorse" a candidate - they'll just blast a candidate.

It essentially makes the ads MORE negative. I'd rather they ENDORSE a candidate. Tell me why I should vote for Howard Dean over George Bush or vice versa. Tell me why the guy is a great leader, has great vision, etc. The law should ENCOURAGE people to speak freely, both positively and negatively about the candidates they support/oppose.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, you seem to have a definition of preemption that, well, odd. You seem to define preemption as an attack when there is nothing to preempt.

In any case, please keep making Hitler analogies in the next year, and please ask your friends to do the same. It's a great campaign boost for Bush.

sure, if it will continue to cause you to make such an embarrassment of yourself by overreacting.

Again, *I* was not making the comparison, merely saying I could see where it could be made.

not that telling you what I said makes any difference in how you repeat what I said. One is retelling what actually happened, the other is what your paranoid delusions fabricate out of nothing.

[BRussell]

My understanding is that they're "527s" and are exempt from FEC regulations. But I think their status is due to be reviewed soon.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
That's the problem I see with McCain/Feingold - other than my free speech objections which the courts didn't see - these types of groups will become the new political parties and not "endorse" a candidate - they'll just blast a candidate.

It essentially makes the ads MORE negative. I'd rather they ENDORSE a candidate. Tell me why I should vote for Howard Dean over George Bush or vice versa. Tell me why the guy is a great leader, has great vision, etc. The law should ENCOURAGE people to speak freely, both positively and negatively about the candidates they support/oppose.

but, like I said, I don't see how that is going to result as long as the experts think attack ads work. As long as that holds true, attack ads will exist, no matter the mechanism or control of the mechanism.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
That's the problem I see with McCain/Feingold - other than my free speech objections which the courts didn't see - these types of groups will become the new political parties and not "endorse" a candidate - they'll just blast a candidate.

It essentially makes the ads MORE negative. I'd rather they ENDORSE a candidate. Tell me why I should vote for Howard Dean over George Bush or vice versa. Tell me why the guy is a great leader, has great vision, etc. The law should ENCOURAGE people to speak freely, both positively and negatively about the candidates they support/oppose.

My personal preference would be to simply lift the restrictions on either parties or candidates. Campaign money is like water. There is so much at stake in an election that the "water" is under enormous pressure. One way or another it is going to get through. So I'd rather it gets through in some way that is at least associated with an overtly partisan source that people can identify.

Really the only problem in my mind is that the public might mistake a partisan ad for something objective. I don't see any problem with a campaign ad that says at the end "paid for by the Democratic National Committee." Nobody could be confused by that. But they could be confused by something like "paid for by the Committee for Sunshine and Rainbows." Who is this group? What are their goals? Sometimes it is really hard to tell, especially when the ad is just an attack on a candidate.

The post-Watergate reforms seem to encourage more of the latter, and fewer of the former. That's probably a mistake if the goal is really transparency.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
My understanding is that they're "527s" and are exempt from FEC regulations. But I think their status is due to be reviewed soon.

OK...

What is a 527 exactly? What can they do that others can't, etc?

What do you want to bet if some groups are reviewed they will claim it to be a political witch hunt.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but, like I said, I don't see how that is going to result as long as the experts think attack ads work. As long as that holds true, attack ads will exist, no matter the mechanism or control of the mechanism.

No doubt that negative ads will always exist - look at posts on this forum - compare the amount of positive reviews of someone's policies versus negative posts. It's a natural instinct.

I just was curious why we'd make it so a group can't endorse a candidate (which is positive) while they can attack another...

Seems to ENCOURAGE the negative...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
My personal preference would be to simply lift the restrictions on either parties or candidates. Campaign money is like water. There is so much at stake in an election that the "water" is under enormous pressure. One way or another it is going to get through. So I'd rather it gets through in some way that is at least associated with an overtly partisan source that people can identify.

Really the only problem in my mind is that the public might mistake a partisan ad for something objective. I don't see any problem with a campaign ad that says at the end "paid for by the Democratic National Committee." Nobody could be confused by that. But they could be confused by something like "paid for by the Committee for Sunshine and Rainbows." Who is this group? What are their goals? Sometimes it is really hard to tell, especially when the ad is just an attack on a candidate.

The post-Watergate reforms seem to encourage more of the latter, and fewer of the former. That's probably a mistake if the goal is really transparency.

That's why the ad against Dean which is in my opinion childish and poorly timed by the non-partisan name "Club for Growth" (as if some people would state they are against growth) and the MoveOn.org (ironically named since Florida 2000 is still a thorn in their side) might as well both be called "Moms for Puppies and Kittens."

Their names mean nothing to people. MoveOn.org might actually become a victim of it's own well organized marketing - it's becoming branded as a left-leaning group. It would be better off being not well known so that it's ads are taken as that of a non-partisan, non-biased group.

[BlackGriffen]

The groups, known as 527s, are there specifically to get around campaign finance laws. Such groups are on both sides.

There are, however, some limitations on their behavior:

• They are not allowed to coordinate the message in any way with any campaign.
• They are not permitted to advocate voting for or against any candidate in any given ad (though smearing and talking up by name are permitted).
• (I'm not sure whether this one applies to the 527s for not) They are not allowed to run an ad that names a candidate in the 30 days before a vote.

There are probably a whole slew more, but their existence can best be summed up as, "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

BlackGriffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
OK...

What is a 527 exactly? What can they do that others can't, etc?

What do you want to bet if some groups are reviewed they will claim it to be a political witch hunt.

"527" is the name of the tax code that such groups fall under.

Getting back to preemptive invasion, though, maybe he should be compared to Napoleon? Nothing would get his dander up more than to be compared to a Frenchie (even though the little man was really Corsican).

Hell, you could probably compare him to Saddam Hussein, too, in the preemptive invasion of Kuwait. That would certainly sting a lot more than Napoleon, but carries similar baggage concerning torture as Hitler.

After the GOP used ads in 2002 comparing Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden, though, I don't know that the RNC is in a position to complain.

I think that the most apt comparison, though, would be Jimbo and his buddy from SouthPark. "They're coming right for us!"

BlackGriffen

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Getting back to preemptive invasion, though, maybe he should be compared to Napoleon? Nothing would get his dander up more than to be compared to a Frenchie (even though the little man was really Corsican).

Not to go back down this road too much, what what was Napoleon preempting? Or Saddam in Kuwait?

Preemption just doesn't mean "for the hell of it" and it is not a synonym for striking first. You just aren't using the word correctly, and that is prompting you to make false analogies.

Here is a clear example of a preemptive war that might clear it up. In 1967, Israel launched what has been described as the classic preemptive war. They had intelligence that they were about to be attacked. So rather than wait for the attack, they attacked preemptively. Get it? It isn't just striking first, it is striking first to prevent the other side from doing something that you anticipate will happen to you if you don't strike first.

Preemption just doesn't fit the Hitler/Saddam/Napoleon examples because as a matter of historical fact, they simply were not in any way preemptive in nature. Therefore, they can't be compared to anything that was preemptive in nature.

This is OT for this thread, so this will be the last thing I will post here on this subject.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
...Or Saddam in Kuwait?

Oil theft.

Nobody does anything without a reason - you may disagree with the reason, that doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Oil theft.

Nobody does anything without a reason - you may disagree with the reason, that doesn't mean to say it doesn't exist.

Kuwait was going to steal Saddam's oil?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Not to go back down this road too much, what what was Napoleon preempting?

Quite simply, my good fellow. The monarchists were terrified of a revolution similar to France's happening on their own soil, and were threatening military action far more than Iraq was to the U.S. So, Napoleon invaded first (it's longer and more complicated than that, but). Napoleon kept going, though, just like we did after Afghanistan.

Also, keep in mind that one of Napoleon's stated aims was liberation/the spread of democracy. That worked out great, didn't it...

Or Saddam in Kuwait?

Slant drilling or what have you (admittedly, the weakest of the three).

Preemption just doesn't fit the Hitler/Saddam/Napoleon examples because as a matter of historical fact, they simply were not in any way preemptive in nature. Therefore, they can't be compared to anything that was preemptive in nature.

Hitler had many wars within WWII, if you'll remember. The preemptive attack of Russia, to fend of someone who Hitler viewed as his inevitable ideological nemesis, fits the bill.

Don't forget that Hitler's excuse for a lot of what he did was the bombing of the Reichstag. I'm not saying that Bush was behind 9/11 the way the Nazis were behind that bombing, but they both seem to have the penchant for justifying everything with one event.

This is OT for this thread, so this will be the last thing I will post here on this subject.

BlackGriffen

[eklipse]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Kuwait was going to steal Saddam's oil?

It allegedly already was.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Kuwait was going to steal Saddam's oil?

That's what Saddam claimed.

Kind of like the WMD claim...

BlackGriffen

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
That's what Saddam claimed.

Kind of like the WMD claim...

So the rest of the world thought Kuwait was going to steal Saddam's oil, so much so that they sent inspectors to make sure they didn't?

BTW, this has nothing to do with the topic...

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
So the rest of the world thought Kuwait was going to steal Saddam's oil, so much so that they sent inspectors to make sure they didn't?

They might have, and they might have found something and stopped it (were there anything to find) if only he had waited.


BlackGriffen