Delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said the critical debate would take place next week.

His bill, cosponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., seeks to ban "soft money" -- unlimited contributions that unions, corporations and individuals may donate to political parties for use other than the "express advocacy" of a candidate's election or defeat.

"With strong support from Democrats, and a small but hardy group of Republicans who have broken with their leadership and spoken out in favor of the bill, we have a strong coalition in the Senate to pass meaningful reform," Feingold said.

But Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Friday that his support for the measure could falter if an amendment seeking to raise "hard money" contributions to candidates succeeds. The amendment would increase the current $1,000-a-year limit to $3,000.

Daschle said such a boost would unfairly help Republicans because they have more rich donors able to pay that amount.

"It goes to the fear that we have that Republicans legally will lock in an advantage that we will never be able to overcome," he told reporters. He didn't say if he would support a smaller increase in the limit.

Feingold said the possible amendments shouldn't cause the bill to fail.

"Wealthy interests have too much power in our political system, but we don't have to just shrug our shoulders and say that's the way politics has to be," he said.

Both McCain and Feingold have said it is inevitable that the $1,000 limit, in place since 1974, will be raised, but McCain said the two have yet to reach a common position.

Feingold said Friday that tripling the limit "is way too high."

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

It's my money, and I can do whatever the heck I want with it. The Democrats are just jealous because more people donate more to us. At least, they usually do. Last year, THEY got more from THEIR rich constituants, and, surprise, surprise, DNP support is faltering.

The first ammendment to the Constitution was specifically designed to prevent things like this. Protection of political speech from government control or interference was the entire purpose of it. What is this, but the government trying to control who can say what, where?

Over here, a law is being pondered to ban Unions from donating to political parties. The Conservative party believes this would prevent elections from being hijacked by the so-called "Hardball" unions.

Now while I don't like the "Hardball" unions and their tactics, this is grossly unfair in the sense that Corporations donate a heck of a lot more money than the unions do. And by starving the left-of-center parties of possible campaign money sources (Liberal Party, NDP), the scale is tilted WAY HEAVILY to the favours of the Conservatives so much that the Liberal and Socialist parties may as well get blasted off the universe.

Reforms are needed, but not at the expense of other people from other political stripes. This might tilt the playing field towards the Republicans. Then again, it may not.

------------------
"Or maybe he was a real quack who got sick and tired of pissing people off, and decided to get a life and masterbate for the next 10 years."
- Me to Antagonist on Red Quacker, 03/08/01 20:15

Considering your knowledge of Constitutional Law is, oh, about the lowest of anyone I've met (and that includes the local coke-heads who don't even know -- or care -- what the thing is), you'll forgive me for not taking what you say as an "expert" opinion. Frankly, your whole post sounds like another take on the "dammed left-wing hollywood elite liberal communist socialist vast conspiracy!" you paranoids like to complain about so damn much.

quote:

---

What is this, but the government trying to control who can say what, where?

---

Do you even know what the bill is about? No, I didn't think so. Why don't you go find out before you start blabbering your big mouth? Thank you VERY much!

It's time to take our nation's leadership out of the hands of the big businesses and special interests who donate so much money, and into the hands of the common citizen, whose voice this bill will give more power to. In this case, the government is giving the power to the people. Of course, most Republicans don't give a damn about the people -- they're after Big Businesses support, and the working man be dammed. Do Big Businesses have the right of the First Ammendment? Yes. But more importantly, the common citizen does too, and this bill gives his or her voice more weight (in a financial sense, since you'd have to be a total moron to think that campaign finance doesn't play a role in "policy").

I would like to say "thank you" to brave Republicans like John McCain and others who have bucked the greed of their party to push for reform. Too bad the vast majority of the rest of the Republicans have only dollar signs in their eyes and not the good of the American people.

For shame.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited March 24, 2001).]

How, pray tell, does this give more power to the general populace of this country? All it does is limit freedom in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

I would point out that you have not made any attempt to refute this, instead attacking me personally.

My point stands.

From the ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet #1:

"[A Campaign Finance Reform Amendment] would carve out a huge exception to First Amendment rights by placing limits on free speech."

"...would give to Congress and the states unprecedented, sweeping and undefined authority to restrict speech currently protected by the First Amendment."

"...would give Congress and every state legislature powers, heretofore denied by the First Amendment, to regulate the press."

Fact Sheet #2:

"The leading "reform" proposals unconstitutionally restrict speech of issue advocacy groups."

"Campaign reform proposals incorrectly assert that Congress can control the quantity and quality of all speech that influences the outcome of elections in an attempt to make elections "fair."

Funny, huh? THE organization for "Civil Liberties" being against it?

------------------
The government that seems the most unwise, oft goodness to the people best supplies. That which is meddling, touching everything, will work but ill, and disappointment bring. - The Tao Te Ching

quote:

---

How, pray tell, does this give more power to the general populace of this country? All it does is limit freedom in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.

---

Riiiight. Paranoid.

quote:

---

I would point out that you have not made any attempt to refute this, instead attacking me personally.

---

I did refute that. As usual, you ignored it. Also, while you seem quite perturbed that I may have committed an "ad-hominem", you showed no such compuncture against doing so against me in the other thread.

quote:

---

My point stands.

---

It sure does. It's supported by the pillars of paranoia, ignorance of constitutional law and thick-headed-ness.

If anything, McCain-Feingold gives more power to the people by focing the political parties to pay more attention to the voices of the individual people (who cannot afford to come anywhere near the spending levels of big-businesses and special interests, which this bill would restrict).

Big-Brother can be many things, my friends. Although I'm sure Omega will deny it, the Republican Party has been bought out by the big corporations and the special interests which give it so much money. Omega apparently feels that these corporations are more deserving of the Republican Party's loyalty than the common citizen.

How thankful that John McCain doesn't feel that way.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

It would seem I owe Omega an apology. Despite his ignorance on most matters of Constitutional Law, it only figures that he would at some point get it correct on some issue. Hopefully, he will take a Constitutional Law course so that the next time he is correct on a matter of Constitutional Law, it will not be a fluke.

(speaking of which, the pillar of ignorance of Constitutional-Law has been removed... )

However, my other points still stand and no one has yet refuted them. Of course, I'm sure they now will try

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

No?

Good.

The whole point is this, Jeff: Whether it would be a good idea or not is not relevant. CONGRESS CAN NOT DO THIS. Not only are they not authorized to, they are expressly forbidden from it. Your "points" are moot. Congress is not above the law.

How funny a thing, that you hold a position ONLY until you discover that a liberal institution disagrees with it. Do you still maintain that your opinions are your own?

Only as much as the DNC is owned by the Unions, the NAACP, the Media and the Trial Lawyers (all of whom make equally huge donations).

You wanna try again?

Vote Green, then you might see a difference.

P.S.
Can someone please define the media in very specific terms?

------------------
Ian Hughes

------------------
Not even a god can deny that I have squared the circle of a static Earth and cubed the Earth sphere by rotating it once to a dynamic Time or Life Cube.
--
Gene Ray
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" Or don't. You know, whatever.

------------------
"Instructed by history and reflection, Julian was persuaded that, if the diseases of the body may sometimes be cured by salutary violence, neither steel nor fire can eradicate the erroneous opinions of the mind."

-Edward Gibbons, The Decline and Fall of The Roman Empire.

quote:

---

The whole point is this, Jeff: Whether it would be a good idea or not is not relevant. CONGRESS CAN NOT DO THIS. Not only are they not authorized to, they are expressly forbidden from it. Your "points" are moot. Congress is not above the law.

---

Of course it's not. The Republican Congress didn't pass something called the "Contact with America", either. But, then, I bet you think that was a good idea, yes?

quote:

---

How funny a thing, that you hold a position ONLY until you discover that a liberal institution disagrees with it. Do you still maintain that your opinions are your own?

---

I still maintain my position that McCain/Feingold is a good step in campaign finance reform. The only thing that I back away on now is my opinion that your knowledge of Constitutional Law is in error, as obviously, you are correct in this issue (however, whether that be too luck or actual knowledge remains to be seen).

Further, Omega, I don't stand to a position when I am corrected. And although the ACLU backs you, I would point out that it is not a liberal organization (and you say you're not paranoid). In fact, the ACLU is an organization for all Americans, in its zealous defense of the Constitution, even defending those who are the polar opposite of liberals (which, again, the ACLU is not): the Klu Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, etcetra.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

Just how DO you define "liberal", anyway? Just anything that you consider good and pure, or what? The Ku Klux Klan has nothing to do with liberals or conservatives in any way. It has nothing to do with the size of the government.