Pluses and minuses here

by Prometheus 6
December 11, 2003 - 8:23am.
on News

Court Ruling Affirms New Landscape of Campaign Finance
By GLEN JUSTICE

ASHINGTON, Dec. 10 ? The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of last year's campaign finance law quashed any final hopes politicians and their parties had about returning to the days when unlimited contributions flowed freely into their hands.

The decision affirmed the core provisions of the largest overhaul of the campaign finance system in the last 30 years, locking in place rules that have been in effect since last November. It upheld the ban on the "soft money" that national political parties collected from corporations, labor unions and anyone wealthy enough to write a large check. And it restricted political advertising around election time.

What's left is a system in which regulated contributions known as "hard money" are the official coin of the realm for those who play in federal politics. Candidates can collect up to $2,000 per donor in each election and parties can raise $25,000 per donor each year.

Practically speaking, those who have skillfully found ways to raise such contributions in large amounts will hold the largest sword in next year's elections. At the top of the list is President Bush, who has established a vast network of business executives and other loyal Republicans and has amassed roughly $110 million so far this year. Among the Democratic candidates, Howard Dean has far surpassed his party's rivals by building an Internet-based network of contributors who have so far given more than $25 million.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/2440

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by phelps (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 12:22pm.

And it restricted political advertising around election time.

That's all the mention the Times devotes to a flat out violation of the First Amendment in the first half of the article? "You can have a free press except when we tell you that you can't." Yeah. Great policy.Just once, I want to hear a politician say, "And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that meddling Constitution."

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 11, 2003 - 7:27pm.

????SInce when has the Constitution stopped them?

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on December 13, 2003 - 2:10am.

Wait, I thought the constitution was supposed to be a 'living breathing document' whose interpretation is no longer bound by the rules of amendment, but by the whims of the elites.

Submitted by P6 (not verified) on December 13, 2003 - 2:30am.

You have a point?