« Iraq: Unanswered Questions | Main | Anthony Cordesman Joins The Coalition of the Shrill »

"Unregulated"

This is not, perhaps, the biggest deal in the world, but it's simply not true, as the president keeps saying and the media keeps repeating, that money donated to 527s is "unregulated." It comes with pretty strict disclosure rules. What it is is uncapped in the sense that you can give as much of it as you want-to-slash-can-afford, which isn't the same thing at all. I don't blame the president for this one all that much since it's a more-or-less direct takeover of old Democratic Party talking points about the dread specter of soft money, but the speed with which Bush has gone from right to unprincipled to insanely wrong on the topic of soft money caps is rather astounding. I would really like to know what launched the media on their jihad against soft money back in the mid-nineties -- it's far and away the clearest example of media bias (as opposed to some sort of ineptitude or cowardice) I've ever seen, it's continued for years and years, and proceeded unabated as the partisan valence of the topic shifted.

August 24, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8342485ad53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Unregulated":

» Gift Basket from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]

Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 2:02:06 AM

Comments

All posts on 527s should mention all of Bush's 527s, and the connections. Repetition works.

TPM:

Okay, I think we've got the winner for the most inane Bush-Swift Boat headline.

From the Bloomington, Indiana Herald Times: "Bush calls anti-Kerry ad 'false and libelous."

Great work, guys.

Tomorrow in the Winfield Crier: "Bush: I Hate the Swift Boat Guys. End Ads Now!"

Thursday in the Podunk Sentinel: "Bush: I Was on The Boat with Kerry."

Friday in the Lumpville Courier: "Bush Breaks Silence: Kerry Saved My Life in 'Nam."
-- Josh Marshall

Posted by: MattB | Aug 24, 2004 12:38:54 PM

it's a more-or-less direct takeover of old Democratic Party talking points about the dread specter of soft money

I'm glad to see a Democrat admitting this.

I would really like to know what launched the media on their jihad against soft money back in the mid-nineties

Self-interest. This has always seemed obvious to me.

Posted by: digamma | Aug 24, 2004 12:49:40 PM

"I would really like to know what launched the media on their jihad against soft money back in the mid-nineties"

Clinton-hatred and the '96 campaign.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 24, 2004 12:51:50 PM

Yeah, what Bob says.

Posted by: Atrios | Aug 24, 2004 12:55:25 PM

Funny how George Soros can pour multiple million$ into MoveOn.org and Michael Moore can blatantly lie, insinuate and exaggerate in his movie yet when a bunch of vets counter-attack, the Dems cry "Foul!" and run for legal cover...

Don't forget when people claim that the Republicans had the 2000 election decided by the Supreme Court, that it was the Democrats who FIRST went to the courts (The Florida Supreme Court) to try to get the election decided in their favor - once they did that, the Republicans HAD to follow on all the way to the US Supreme Court.

John Kerry can't complain about vets coming out against his service record when he himself has made it such a central issue in the campaign. If he made his Senate service the central issue it would be more appropriate but then after 19 years with so many absences and so little of note he knows there's nothing there for him!

Bottom line: the man's a fraud. The Democratic party should cut their losses and run for the hills - Maybe they'll have someone worth electing in 2008...

Or maybe not...

Posted by: Luke | Aug 24, 2004 12:56:43 PM

I would really like to know what launched the media on their jihad against soft money back in the mid-nineties -- it's far and away the clearest example of media bias (as opposed to some sort of ineptitude or cowardice) I've ever seen, it's continued for years and years, and proceeded unabated as the partisan valence of the topic shifted.

Let me count the ways:

(1) Perot specifically made the presence of "PAC money" and "foreign lobbyists" an issue in the 1992 election, and why he was the only candidate who represented the people and not his contributors.

(2) Whether as a political calculation or the idea that it would be good policy, Clinton advocated public funding of elections to "Get the money out of politics". Even Dole admitted the need for finance reform in the 1996 debates.

(3) Among the endless string of Clinton non-scandals, weren't there several related to semi-questionable soft money fundraising practices? Weren't some of the Lincoln bedroom stays in "exchange" for rather large soft money checks? I'm happy to be corrected on this one.

(4) McCain, who was telgraphing his run for the presidency fighting the tobacco companies as well, was also pushing finance reform.

(5) Since part of the motivation of the Clinton/new Dem strategy was to appeal more to businesses and thus get more business contributions, the press could now claim that both parties were seeking the donations of big soft money contributors.

So it's not like the press took up the spectre of "soft money" on a whim. They had lots of prompting. The media is "biased" in that they had both parties telling them soft money was a problem [and I'm not just counting McCain].

Posted by: niq | Aug 24, 2004 1:01:47 PM

Luke,
I wonder if you understood the facts whether or not you would have a different view.

Posted by: theCoach | Aug 24, 2004 1:01:49 PM

pretty absurd to be referring to a set of groups by a government regulation number and then call them unregulated.

Posted by: praktike | Aug 24, 2004 1:04:03 PM

Here's some 527's that Bush wants to prohibit from advertising for a candidate or expressing opinions on the issues:

- National Republican Congressional Committee
- National Republican Senatorial Committee
- National Federation for Republican Women
- Bush-Cheney 2000, Inc-Recount Fund,
- Republicans for Clean Air. (The anti-McCain group from 2000)

We can feel comfortable that Bush is just trying to change the subject when he says "no 527 advertising", and doesn't really intend real action.

Also clear it that the free speech aspects of a ban on 527 ads haven't penetrated the BushCo political misdirection. Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution....

Why haven't the media asked Bush about whether he means ALL 527's or just those that support Democratic positions?

And why no media outcry on the Constitutional issues in a 527 ad ban?

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Aug 24, 2004 1:04:07 PM

re: MattB

The classic thing is that Josh Marshall is serious. He wakes up everyday in a city where the major daily offers front page headlines like these from the last five days:

"Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode"

"Kerry Team Lines Up Vietnam Witnesses: Bush Again Declines To Condemn Attack Ad"

"Records Counter a Critic of Kerry: Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire"

"Kerry Says Group Is a Front For Bush: Democrat Launches Counterattack Ad On Combat Record"

And JMM is taking swipes at the agenda setting Bloomington, Indiana Herald Times. That's just too funny.

Posted by: piraeus | Aug 24, 2004 1:16:47 PM

"Don't forget when people claim that the Republicans had the 2000 election decided by the Supreme Court, that it was the Democrats who FIRST went to the courts"

LOL--so the case name is really, "Gore v Bush," and the liberal media have been getting it wrong all this time?

Posted by: rea | Aug 24, 2004 1:23:14 PM

How can they be unregulated?

They're named after the very section of the IRS REGULATIONS that govern them!

Posted by: Silent E | Aug 24, 2004 1:35:15 PM

This demonstrates once again that politicians will demagogue anything from every possible angle beneficial to them: what was a free speech issue yesterday - is the issue of unregulated soft money today. They have no decency.

Ain't it special? Duh.

Posted by: abb1 | Aug 24, 2004 1:42:45 PM

Note how deftly the Bush machine changed the subject from "dishonest propaganda" to "soft money" and specifically 527's (where the Democrats have a momentary advantage)? The fact that Bush's positions on soft money are inconsistent, opportunistic and flip-floppy is rather secondary. The press is eating it up, it seems.

The Bush campaign is oriented entirely to people who DON'T PAY ATTENTION. His support comes from them, from people with pork to gain, from paid operatives, and from liberal-haters.

DeLong talks all the time about the Grownup Republicans, and to me they're the ones who will decide the election, but I have no faith in them.

BTW, has anyone seen Al? He accuses Soros of sucking the blood of people in poor nations. I'm just wondering whether Al's hatred of international finance is Marxist, Social Credit, LaRouchie, Transpro, or Islamic in origin. Is Al a closet admirer of Mahathir?

I had thought Al was a capitalist. To capitalists, you know, international finance is normal and good.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 24, 2004 2:21:30 PM

Coach:

Luke's problem isn't with the facts; he's pretty much right. His problem is staying on topic: campaign financing.

Speaking of which, Matthew: When was Bush ever "right" on soft money caps? He, like the mainstream Democrat and Republican voices, have all been both unprincipled and dead wrong from the start. But then, I suppose there's little incentive to make serious changes to the system that got them elected in the first place.

Posted by: Shelby | Aug 24, 2004 2:41:07 PM

ok, I have a question. Someone brought up the fact that the DNC website has links to moveon.org. What, this person asked, is the difference between democratic support for moveon.org, and the Bush ties to swiftboat vets for truth. I don't know the answer, would appreciate any input.

Posted by: Susan Crawford | Aug 24, 2004 5:08:00 PM

On Campaign Finance:

Over a hundred years ago, the English passed what was then a truly revolutionary reform: Members of Parliment would be PAID for their service - This was hotly contested by the status quo.

Prior to that only the rich could afford to run for office - the rest had to work for a living.

Thanks to the cost of campaigning today even the rich can't afford to run - only the SUPER-rich.

We're behind Victorian England in terms of true popular representation.

How's that for progress?

Posted by: Luke | Aug 24, 2004 5:14:49 PM

Funny, Al didn't stop by this thread.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 24, 2004 5:50:30 PM

"And why no media outcry on the Constitutional issues in a 527 ad ban?"

Well, duh; I thought everybody knew that media people are convinced only journalists have any 1st amendment rights. And the 527 ads are just competition for the "in kind" contributions the media run as editorials and slanted news. The more they can shut everyone else up, the louder they sound in the resulting silence.

Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Aug 24, 2004 8:14:05 PM

The corporate media wants to be the only voice in any debate. That's all there is to it.
Some campaign finance reform is fine (I'm sorry, but the candidate that the rich favor shouldn't be able to outspend every-one else's candidate 1000000 to 1. That is not democracy) However, independant voices shouldn't be silenced at all. What should be done is institute HARSH penalties for any collusion that can be proven to occur, and to give the FEC the staff to police campaigns themselves instead of waiting for complaints. The media just doesn't want anyone else to have the ability to speak. They have gotten WAY out of hand.

Posted by: soul | Aug 25, 2004 10:32:32 AM

cash advance http://www.cashadvance-x.com

Posted by: cash advance | Nov 7, 2005 5:13:40 PM

mortgage http://www.mortgage-911.net

Posted by: mortgage | Nov 12, 2005 11:24:20 AM

web hosting http://www.webhosting-x.com

Posted by: web hosting | Nov 13, 2005 1:57:18 PM

home equity line of credit http://www.homeequitylineofcreditz.com

Posted by: home equity line of credit | Nov 28, 2005 1:51:06 AM

Post a comment