Burgold Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Bush Campaign Files Lawsuit Against FEC By SHARON THEIMER, AP NEW YORK (Sept. 1) - President Bush's campaign asked a court Wednesday to force the Federal Election Commission to act on its complaints against anti-Bush groups spending millions of dollars in the presidential race, arguing that the FEC is failing to do its job. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, the campaign argued that the FEC is taking too long to address what the campaign calls illegal spending of corporate, union and big individual donations to influence the presidential race. Its lawsuit seeks a preliminary injunction that would force the commission to act on its March complaint within 30 days. After that, the campaign could sue to block the groups' activities through court action rather than relying on the FEC. "To prevent these 527s from continuing to violate federal election laws, we have asked the federal court to step in and order the FEC to act," said Tom Josefiak, general counsel for the Bush-Cheney campaign. Outside groups trying to deny Bush a second term have spent more than $60 million on advertising, far outstripping organizations sympathetic to the president that have vowed a late campaign drive to match their rivals. Josefiak said that if the court and the FEC both move quickly that it could get action before Election Day and curtail the soft-money groups. The campaign and Republican National Committee filed complaints in March accusing anti-Bush groups, including the Media Fund, America Coming Together and Moveon.org, of illegally spending large contributions to influence the federal election. A law that took effect in November 2002 broadly banned the spending of so-called soft money to influence presidential and congressional races. The anti-Bush groups argue that the ban only applies to activity that explicitly calls for a federal candidate's election or defeat, and say their spending stops short of that. The Bush campaign views its action Wednesday as the first step in its legal campaign in limiting the group to individual contributions and forcing them to disclose their activity to the FEC. The sponsor of the soft-money ban, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, has said he wants to go to Congress this month with legislation to outlaw the soft-money groups. 09/01/04 11:38 EDT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Kerry should join him in this lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 that would be fitting and funny. I can see it now. A class action suit comprised of presidential candidates against the 527's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Its not like it is goi9ng to do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Liberty Its not like it is goi9ng to do anything. yes it is and is brilliant, something that Kerry's camp couldn't think of it hit them in the a$$, they don't want anything from this suit jus that they have done something if I was kerry i would fire my campaign manager now, he is losing him the election while bush has been taking it to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 That would be great if Kerry joined Bush on this one......that way Bush can become the uniter that he has always strived to be....instead of the divider that he currently is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Screw the first amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by jbooma yes it is and is brilliant, something that Kerry's camp couldn't think of it hit them in the a$$, they don't want anything from this suit jus that they have done something if I was kerry i would fire my campaign manager now, he is losing him the election while bush has been taking it to them I think most people are smart enough to know that this is a PR move and nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Liberty I think most people are smart enough to know that this is a PR move and nothing more. I have seen no sign that this electorate is smart enough to know what is PR smoke and mirrors, and what is real matters of substance. We deserve what we get in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 It's always a good sign when the President of the United States files a frivilous lawsuit to silence everyday Americans freedom of speech. (Having trouble keeping straight face) You know I keep hearing that the dems are the party of the lawyers, but the Bush crowd sure to hire them a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big z Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 it clearly states this would be a lawsuit about illegal spending, not free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted September 2, 2004 Author Share Posted September 2, 2004 they may claim its about spending, but let's be serious it's about inhibiting free speech, especially the kind of free speech he finds damaging. Kerry did the same thing and a whole bunch of conservatives derided him for it and claimed the the Swiftboaters were neutral and skating free of the spending restrictions because they were not "part" of the campaign. In seriousness, most of the 527 ads I have heard are cheap propaganda and tools of one candidate or the other and not a tool for citizens to get a say in the election process. It is disengenuous to believe that they are upset because of spending irregularities... they are upset because of the messages being produced. Mind you, they will only denounce the ones that are against them and are trying to legally narrow the scope so that all the anti-Kerry ads can continue even if they prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by big z it clearly states this would be a lawsuit about illegal spending, not free speech. Lucky Devil is saying limiting the amount of money one can give to a group that speaks for you politically through ads is also limiting free speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big z Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 i understand that. spend legally, and they can say all they want. big double standard with regard to the swift vs. 527 ads. This forces the FEC to take action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by Liberty Lucky Devil is saying limiting the amount of money one can give to a group that speaks for you politically through ads is also limiting free speech. There are LAWS now in place to stop the 527s from doing exactly what they are doing. Like it or not (And it was a McCain bill supported by many more Dems than Rep.), the fact is that THEY are breaking the law, and if our own President isn't going to fight to uphold the law (instead of you, breaking it by committing purgury), then who the hell is? Bush has stated publicly that the Boaters' ads should stop, and if his campaign wins this legal battle, it would set presidence for Kerry's campaign to stop the Boaters' ads as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor 36 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Originally posted by voltaire007 (instead of you, breaking it by committing purgury) My bad. It should read "instead of you KNOW" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OURYEAR#56 Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 Bush hasn't said word one about the war on Iraq, or the economy. Neither has his political cheer leaders. And what was up with that Democrat turned republican. He reminder me of John Marshall. The guy looked crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted September 2, 2004 Share Posted September 2, 2004 There are LAWS now in place to stop the 527s from doing exactly what they are doing. Like it or not (And it was a McCain bill supported by many more Dems than Rep.), the fact is that THEY are breaking the law, and if our own President isn't going to fight to uphold the law (instead of you, breaking it by committing purgury), then who the hell is? !@#$ the law Ignore it as long as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Seems like Bush shouldn't have signed the bill in the first place. Is this the latest in a long line of Bush flip-flops? Nah. Bush is full of resolve, right? Just a PR stunt to put some distance between Bush and his Swift Boat stooges. The web of connections was catching up to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by OURYEAR#56 Bush hasn't said word one about the war on Iraq, or the economy. Neither has his political cheer leaders. And what was up with that Democrat turned republican. He reminder me of John Marshall. The guy looked crazy. ahhh, OU56, Bush has only spoken once at the convention and he had no references to any policy then because he was introducing his wife. I have watched every speach from both conventions and I can say with authority, that Iraq and the economy have both been spoken about. Are you watching RNC re-runs this week on the Cspan throwback channel. PLease inform yourself before posting on something you don't know about as fact. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Jackson's Ward Seems like Bush shouldn't have signed the bill in the first place. Is this the latest in a long line of Bush flip-flops? Nah. Bush is full of resolve, right? Just a PR stunt to put some distance between Bush and his Swift Boat stooges. The web of connections was catching up to him. You do understand that Bush camp filed the FEC complaint months ago, well before anyone had even heard of a swift boat, right? Who could have forseen that the 527's would break the LAW that Bush signed. How in the world can you blame Bush for other peoples illegal activity? What's next? Bush concocted Hurricane Frances to coincide with his speech at the RNC? Time to take off the partisan glasses and join in educated debate instead of party line BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 If you saw a loophole in the law you signed and the other side passed: Would you try and fix it? Yes/No? Everything else is comments on the who/what/when/where. The Yes/No is to the spirit of the law... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sick Posted September 3, 2004 Share Posted September 3, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear If you saw a loophole in the law you signed and the other side passed: Would you try and fix it? Yes/No? Everything else is comments on the who/what/when/where. The Yes/No is to the spirit of the law... So you don't mind changing rules during the middle of the game? Bush does have some good "activist" lawyers who covered his but on this issue back in March. I thought Republicans loved loopholes. That is how they get around paying taxes and how they are able to do business with Rogue nations. The FEC should be able to jump in now and take down any blatantly false accusations or be some kind of fact checker. Most of the Swift Boat stuff has been disproved. They should have the right to say that they don't Kerry is fit for duty. However, the doctor who said he treated Kerry, but didn't, should be removed. No one can say that the Move On ad about the kids having to pay off the national debt is false. ---- Along with a good comment: "Four years ago when a 527 established by his Texas pals was viciously attacking Sen. McCain, President Bush thought that was a fine thing," Jordan said. "Now that he's been on the receiving end of some tough ads and his campaign's own ties to the Swift boat group have been uncovered, he's found religion." :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.