Potential presidential candidates this year–including Bush–are using outside groups to pay for traditional functions of an early campaign or political committee, including communications, policy development, and research. Unlike a presidential campaign or the committees that politicians are supposed to use while they consider running for the White House, these groups have no legal limits on contributions, which worries watchdogs.
This report from Bloomberg Politics:
This week, two groups filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission, saying four potential presidential candidates including Bush were in essence testing the waters of a presidential campaign, and therefore subject to campaign finance regulations. The outside groups, experts say, allow the candidates to more easily coordinate activities and spending while avoiding the scrutiny of frequent, mandated disclosure reports.
“The system did not want potential candidates raising contributions of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars," said Tony Corrado, a campaign finance expert at Colby College in Maine. "But that’s what is taking place under this ruse that they haven’t decided whether or not to run for president.”
These changes are the culmination of what Barack Obama started as a candidate in 2008, and continued in 2012. By his 2012 re-election, both he and Republican nominee Mitt Romney were aided by outside groups, formed as either nonprofits, which don’t have to report donors, or super political action committees, which report contributors but can raise funds in unlimited amounts.
There is letter of the law, and then there is the functional or real world effect. It's one thing to say that unlimited spending is a matter of free speech and that by allowing unlimited spending, we are allowing everyone (,meaning rich people) to have the full extent of that freedom. The reality, however, is that with more money, you get a bigger megaphone and hence, the ability to silence your opponents voice. The whole thing is just one big game to allow the most money possible into the race with the least amount of scrutiny about where it comes from.
ReplyDeleteWhy worry about it? Why doesn't the Congress pass a law allowing each candidate to have one server for their private use. Even the playing field. Each candidate can keep private whatever campaign donor information that they desire. Let's even have the Congress authorize funds for the construction of buildings to house the servers, and secret service protection of all related information. Exposure of any foreign donors would of course be exempted from disclosure at the integrity of those running.
DeleteSounds like an equitable plan.
Your solution doesn't address what I see as the problem. The secrecy is part of the problem to me, but the bigger issue IMO is the sheer volume of money that is spent. When I see billions of dollars being spent to win, I assume that the donors are expecting something in return. I believe that if you limit the ability of mega donors to the level of the average slob who can vote and maybe give a couple hundred bucks to a candidate they admire, you then get a level playing field. This, of course, flies in the face of logic of those who believe that those with money should never have to endure being limited in anything.
DeleteThis is generally where most of our disagreement lies William. I don't believe that we fundamentally want drastically different results. IE, neither of us wants to see endless debt, intrusive government rule, or freeloaders sucking off everyone else. But, I'm primarily interested in the functional result rather than purity of philosophy.
Seriously, a candidate could possibly use this loophole right up to the day of the nomination. Just say "I've not decided whether to run yet, I'm just running these ads and participating in these debates just in case."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of servers, you know, don't you that Congress has exempted it's members from the requirement that their communications be in the public domain. They can have as many private servers as they want.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you suppose that is?
DeleteElected representatives ain't cabinet servants Mick.
DeleteMy server joke (above) went right over Max's head.
A lot of shit that you say "goes over my head" William because you repeat dog whistle messages that only about 10% of the electorate can understand. Heck, even they can't understand it but if it comes from one of their trusted sources, they don't need to understand it.
DeleteIf it doesn't come out of Billy Maher's pie hole you can't understand it. A fucking sec. of state is supposed to retain all records.
DeleteWhere is the server today?
The server's at Denny. There's a special today, Moons Over My Hammy for $4.99 ...
DeleteExcellent pfunky.
DeleteThe other end of thousands of emails are out there. Perjury faces many dept of state officials. Sooner or later, someone will shove that server up HRC's ass.
DeleteThe keyword is server. Ticking time bomb Benghazi era documents. Many are probably in private circulation deadly like a fart under a blanket.