Today in the DC Examiner: Are we bailing out dead donkeys?

Today in the DC Examiner: Are we bailing out dead donkeys?

November 18, 2008

Examiner Editorial: Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is handing out billions of tax dollars to selected Wall Street firms, but refuses to disclose any details of who, how much or with what in return. This is a major scandal-in-the-making.

Quin Hillyer: The Supreme Court agrees to hear another case that could put McCain-Feingold regulation of political speech in the legal garbage can where it belongs.

Examiner OpEd: John Hawkins pens an open letter to GOP members of the U.S. Senate, challenging them to try something new.

20081118 Today in the DC Examiner Are we bailing out dead donkeys?

20020225 Senate vote on Shays/Meehan is expected THIS WEEK

The Senate vote on Shays/Meehan is expected some time THIS WEEK!

Analysis by Former Minority Leader – Maryland House of Delegates, Ellen Sauerbrey:

February 25^th, 2002

This Senate vote is our last chance to stop Shays-Meehan --and that vote could take place this week!

Please take a moment to read the article below and then call any or all of the Senators listed below, who supported McCain-Feingold. Ask them to support Senator Mitch McConnell in his effort to force this bill into a Conference Committee where it can be amended to at least be Constitutional!

RUSH LIMBAUGH is calling this bill the "Campaign Finance Reform Scandal." And he's right! It protects incumbents, empowers the mainstream media, and strips ordinary citizens of free speech rights.

This bill transfers power to special interests and 3^rd party groups and away from individuals.

Shays-Meehan limits the right of federal officeholders to solicit money for political parties and other groups, but specifically allows lawmakers to continue to solicit funds for "non-partisan" entities such as the NAACP.

Furthermore, it’s unfair because it does nothing to prevent third party organizations (i.e. Unions) from continuing with their massive voter registration and GOTV programs. The Republican Party doesn’t have the Unions to turn to in order to accomplish our GOTV goals.

Under this bill a group of Maryland citizens would be banned from running an issue ad on the radio after August 11 (when no one is paying attention to politics) if they are unhappy because a candidate for Congress wants to put a casino in their neighborhood, confiscate their property, or trample on other Constitutional rights.

Read why in the article that follows:

DISMANTLING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NAME OF REFORM

By Ellen Sauerbrey

The passage of Shays-Meehan should alarm every freedom loving American. Those who think the Constitution really means it when it says, "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech", are stunned that Congress is in the process of doing just that. Columnist George Will called this issue "the most pivotal moment in the history of American freedom" over the past 35 years.

Members of Congress would actually make it a federal crime for a group of citizens to broadcast ads that discuss the record of a candidate for federal office within 30 days of a primary or within 60 days of a general election. Incumbents are more likely than challengers to have a voting record that ordinary citizens might like to criticize so no wonder many call this measure an "incumbent protection act".

Congressional supporters dismiss concerns about this trampling on the Constitution as a trivial detail; one that is necessary to keep them from being corrupted. But, in fact, it will deprive citizens of free speech and voters of the variety of opinions that are necessary to help them decide how to vote.

Let’s see how this gag rule would work. Let's pretend that a candidate for Congress had supported legislation that allowed government to grab people's property and put it to use for other purposes in the name of the "public good". Suppose that a group of the homeowners, whose properties were in danger of being confiscated, were outraged and decided to band together and run an ad. Perhaps that ad would point out that the candidate had shown little respect for their private property rights. Maybe that knowledge would be of importance and interest to other voters as they decide how to cast their ballot.

But when our group of citizens prepares to run their ad they find they have a problem. This year, the General Election is on November 5th, so they are banned from running their ad for sixty days prior to the election. Sixty days prior to the General Election happens to be September 6^th. But our homeowners can not run their ad in early September because the Primary Election is September 10^th and the law says no ads can be run for thirty days prior to the Primary. They now count back thirty days prior to the September 10^th primary and find…Bingo! They can finally run their ad but only prior to August 11.

So under the guise of campaign finance reform our citizens are muzzled. The only time that our homeowners can broadcast their ad is while people are on the beaches in Ocean City and paying little attention to the upcoming November election. Even worse, the candidate who will run in the General Election has not even been nominated so maybe the candidate who wanted to take their property will not even be on the ballot in November.

Maybe the press will report on the candidate’s position on this issue. Or maybe the press supports the candidate and doesn’t want to remind voters of an unpopular position that the candidate has taken.

The gag rule does not apply to an individual, so maybe our homeowners can find a "sugar daddy’ willing to spend $50,000 to broadcast their ad; but this is not likely. How ironic that supporters of Shays-Meehan would bar middle class citizens from banding together to do what millionaires and media moguls will be able to do.

There is really only one way to avoid corruption in politics. That is to elect honest people.

Former Minority Leader – Maryland House of Delegates

________________________

The following Republican Senators voted Yea on McCain- Feingold.

Chafee (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Domenici (R-NM)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thompson (R-TN)

If you haven't done so already, please take a moment to contact your two U.S. Senators,

Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Sen. Paul Sarbanes

Ellen Sauerbrey

Web Site: www.SauerbreyOnline.com

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.

####