It's back - Congress mulls campaign finance law

[The Evil Genius]

I guess this would mean less $ for the Dems from overseas and less $ for the GOP from Big Business and the Tobacco companies.

That - or they will get better at hiding the source of the money

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20020605/ap_on_go_co/campaign_finance_11

Congress Mulls Campaign Finance Law

Wed Jun 5,10:37 AM ET

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal regulators who must enforce a sweeping new campaign finance law and those telling them how they should do it are finding the devil is truly in the details.

At two days of Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) hearings on its proposed rule to implement a cornerstone of the new law, much of the discussion focused on how the FEC should define one word: agent.

At issue at the meetings, which were wrapping up Wednesday, is how and to whom the FEC should apply the law's ban on the raising and spending of "soft money" — unlimited contributions from labor unions, corporations and others — by federal politicians for federal election activity and by national party committees.

Attorneys for the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) and its Democratic counterpart testified Wednesday that the FEC should impose a narrow definition of agent and that political committees with no direct ties to the national parties, such as local presidential convention host committees, should be able to continue raising soft money.

Donald McGahn, general counsel for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said the commission should rely on the wording of the law rather than give special weight to the sponsors' current comments about the bill's intent, saying that they should not be allowed to change it after the fact. He noted that the bill at one point was worked on overnight and came out at 2 a.m. the day of debate on it.

"The idea that there was some seamless theory behind this bill is folly," McGahn said. "It was cobbled together to get votes."

Campaign-finance watchdogs who back the new law told the FEC it should take a broad view of it while trying to write straightforward rules. Critics of the law say the commission's rules should carry "bright-line" tests spelling out what political players can and can't do.

"Clarity should never be a cover for going against the intent of Congress," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics and a former FEC attorney. "The FEC must avoid these calls to eviscerate the law right out of the box."

The law's sponsors, including Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., say the FEC's rules should make clear that national party committees and federal candidates and officeholders cannot avoid the ban by using staff or other intermediaries to raise soft money.

Several interest groups and political parties are urging the FEC to take a narrow view of the law, arguing a far-reaching approach would violate Congress' wishes.

AFL-CIO attorney Larry Gold said the ban on raising soft money should apply only to those who have actual express oral or written authority to raise such money on behalf of a national political party or federal politician.

Many union members involved in AFL-CIO grass-roots political activities such as volunteer get-out-the-vote drives also serve on Democratic party committees, and an overly broad ban could unfairly ensnare them, Gold said.

He told the FEC it should be faithful to the law and give no special weight to the sponsors' comments, particularly of what they seek is not part of the legislative history.

The sponsors do not "have some kind of continuing role of interpreting, advising, instructing or requiring the commission to decide anything, let alone the courts," Gold said.

Ki Hong, an attorney for the NAACP National Voter Fund, said he was concerned about how the FEC would handle tax-exempt groups like the fund that have received soft money from political party committees. It should only consider money they accept after the law takes effect, he said.

He also asked the commission to let national parties contribute any remaining soft money to nonprofit organizations like the voter fund when the new law takes effect after the November election.

The FEC's hearing was to continue Wednesday with testimony from political party committees including the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).

The commission plans to adopt soft money rules by the end of June. It will then begin work implementing other parts of the overhaul. The law faces several court cases over its constitutionality.

[Riggo-toni]

The bottom line is it is impossible to create a legally feasible campaign finance law that doesn't infringe on the right to free speech. The solution (if you can call it that...) is better disclosure of funds.

[Art]

Any campaign finance reform that limits the money people can contribute to the candidate of choice is a law only an incumbent can love. Already the incumbent candidate has a large advantage over the challenger. Taking out the ability for people to campaign actively against an incumbent is very favorable to those already in power.

I have no problems with money in politics. It's always been there and it always will be. A criminal is a criminal and those who are willing to sell themselves and those that put them into office will still do so. I've seen some threads wondering about political angling. Campaign finance reform is the about the largest political game possible.

[indyskinsfan]

True Art, though as many of us would like it to be prestine clean and sanitized, the so-called "dirty money" or 'pac money" or sell-out funding will Never, Ever stop. Make a rule and you automatically create loopholes. The more chances there are to make a rule, the more creative the lobbyist becomes. it takes almost forever from idea to enforcement in Congress on an issue such as that, so they are always ahead of the game. Good points.