20010709 McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

July 9^th, 2001

-----Original Message-----

From: Ellen Sauerbrey

Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 9:12 PM

Subject: 20010709 McCain Feingold Poison pill for political parties

To Maryland political activists,

As you know, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" bill recently passed the Senate is now under consideration in the House. What you may not know is how horribly this measure will impact on the Republican party at the state and national level.

We are in a fight for our lives and I am calling on you to join me in contacting our Congressmen quickly, and vociferously urging them to oppose McCain-Feingold and instead to support the Ney bill which is far more acceptable.

I have attached an op-ed that I have submitted to The Sun that gives a full explanation of the issue, but let me briefly say that legislation that bans soft money from being shared with state political parties will decimate state political parties and leave in their place strengthened and unregulated special interest groups and the media.

"Soft money" is NOT inherently bad. In fact it is more accurately called non-federal money because it is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission.

It is used by state parties for overhead, voter registration, generic issue pieces, phone banks and get out the vote efforts.

Contrary to what you have heard, soft money is NOT unregulated. Just because it is not regulated by the Federal Election Commission does not mean that It is not regulated.

Every dollar is regulated by the law of the states in which it is spent. In addition, banning non campaign groups from running issue ads for two months prior to the election is a blatant infringement on the First Amendment.

Ellen Sauerbrey

McCain-Feingold- A Poison Pill for Political Parties

By Ellen Sauerbrey – Maryland Republican National Committeewoman

Our American political system is based on the ability of people with similar beliefs to band together in political parties to promote their political philosophy and support candidates of their choice.

Commenting on the effects of proposed campaign finance reform legislation, House Democrat Caucus Chairman Martin Frost observed “ The political parties would be neutered, and third-party groups would run the show”.

The McCain-Feingold bill, banning “soft money”, that has passed the Senate would indeed cripple political parties and leave special interest groups and the media as the major advocates of issues. If in place during the last election cycle, McCain-Feingold would have deprived the Democrat party of half of its funds and the Republican Party of one-third of the funds raised. However, special interest groups could still collect unlimited soft money from any source.

In campaign finance jargon, “Soft money” is evil money, or so we are told. Yet most people do not have the slightest idea what the term means.

Soft money is money raised and spent by political parties subject to state, not federal, election law. It is the money national parties transfer to state parties for non-federal purposes and share with state and local candidates. It is the money used for redistricting, overhead and issue debate by the state and national parties.

Soft money is voluntarily contributed, but it is disclosed and regulated. It is spent and recorded in accordance with state law.

Banning soft money will make illegal the money contributed by national parties to state party’s traditional voter registration, get out the vote, and absentee ballot programs whenever there is a federal candidate on the ballot. In the last election cycle the Republican National Committee sent $93 million “soft dollars” to state parties that helped fund 110 million get out the vote and generic issue pieces, 25 million absentee ballots, and 65 million generic phone calls.

Those who believe that strong political parties are the best defense against the influence of special interests, media moguls and self financed millionaire candidates, see the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill as a disaster that will cripple the two-party system and federalize most of campaign finance and issue discussion. In usurping the authority of states to regulate campaign expenditures, it essentially nationalizes state election law.

National political parties are not just parties of Congress and Senators but work with states to promote Governors and local candidates. In the 2000 election cycle, the Republican National Committee contributed $11 Million to State Legislative Races and $7 million to Governors; all regulated by state law.

As McCain-Feingold strangles political parties, drying up nearly half of their funds, other interest groups could still collect unlimited funds from any source – unregulated and unreported. Labor union activity estimated by a Rutgers study to have been valued at $300 million in 2000 cycle is unregulated and remains unregulated.

Of the $500 million spent on issue ads during the 2000 election cycle, 68% was spent by third party special interest groups – twice that of both political parties combined. Under a soft money ban, political parties will be muzzled leaving unregulated special interest groups and the media to control political discourse.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell has it right when he says, “In an effort to take money out of politics, we’ve taken parties out of politics.”

The Republican National Committee, made up of each state party chairman and the National Committeeman and Committeewoman from every state, has voted unanimously against the concepts in McCain-Feingold three times. Hopefully House members will join us in support of a true campaign reform measure that strengthens, not weakens, citizen involvement in their government.

####