 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Small World | Main | The Main Event » September 7, 2004Paper: Free Speech Bad, Especially If It Hurts KerryThe Tennessean says in an editorial the so-called "527" groups spending all that money on independent political ads are bad and further campaign finance reform is needed. (Ya gotta love it when a newspaper comes out strongly in favor of clamping down on the freedom of speech!). Strangely, the paper says all 527s are bad, but it can only name one of them, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been hammering John Kerry. And while there are countless probably illegal connections and active coordination between the Kerry campaign and 527s such as MoveOn.org, American Coming Together and the Media Fund, the editorial notes only one minor and now severed "connection" between SBVT and the Bush campaign. The editorial says SBVT is "the most famous" of the 527s, but fails to mention that SBVT's funding and spending is dwarfed by that of the array of 527s backing Kerry. Argh. Posted in Kerry 527 Connections
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
I guess you gotta love it even more when Bush says 527's are bad and wants to clamp down on free speech, eh? "That means that ad and every other ad. I don't believe we ought to have 527s. I think they're bad for the system," Bush said on Monday in Crawford, Texas. "I frankly thought we'd gotten rid of it when I signed McCain-Feingold" campaign finance reform." Posted by: dave at September 7, 2004 09:21 AMI actually don't agree with Bush (and I suspect he didn't actually mean it, either). My preference for campaign finance reform is this: No limits, full disclosure. If George Soros wants to give Kerry $500 million to run a campaign, he ought to be allowed to do so - provided we know he has done it. I suspect that if there were no limits but full disclosure, no major candidate would accept $500 million or even $50 million from a single billionaire because of the downside - the ads that would be run questioning why said billionaire wants to "buy" the presidency for said candidate, and what the candidate will owe that billionaire in return. In short, the PR downside is too great. I suspect even with no limits, as long as there is full disclosure, campaigns will continue to be funded the way the Bush campaign has been funded: with a whole lot of small donations from individuals. Posted by: Bill at September 7, 2004 11:41 AMI suspect even with no limits, as long as there is full disclosure, campaigns will continue to be funded the way the Bush campaign has been funded: with a whole lot of small donations from individuals. Which is why the Dems have more 527's on their side. [Insert standard observation that the supposed party of the little people- the Dems- get most of their donations from billionaires and big labor.] Posted by: Michael Chaney at September 7, 2004 12:57 PMIf everybody minded their own business, the world would go around a deal faster. What a crock. I could easily overemphasize the importance of good Post a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
