Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : The ENRON Scandal -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mephisto who wrote (2801)	2/13/2002 10:11:16 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 5185

Poisoning Shays-Meehan Editorial The New York Times February 12, 2002 When campaign finance reform finally comes before the House on Wednesday, the lawmakers trying to kill the bill will come in many disguises. Rather than voting against the whole measure, they will proclaim their love for reform - a love so deep that it can best be expressed in a series of amendments to "improve" the bill. Today we say: Beware of such talk. The aim of almost all such "improvements" is to destroy the fragile coalition backing reform, or to pass a version that cannot immediately win approval in the Senate, thereby forcing the legislation into a House-Senate conference - and certain oblivion. The bill, known as Shays-Meehan, would ban unlimited "soft money" donations by unions, corporations and rich individuals to national parties and greatly restrict them to state and local parties. These big-money donations have been consistently mounting until they threaten to bury our representative system of government under their weight. In 2004, they could approach $750 million. The parade of poison amendments inspired by foes of Shays-Meehan is likely to be led by one attacking a provision that, when it was added in the Senate, solidified bipartisan support and enabled it to pass in that chamber last year. The provision allowed corporations, unions or individuals to give $10,000 to state and local party committees for certain campaign activities. In its current form, the Shays-Meehan bill would keep this provision but tighten it to bar the money from being spent for broadcast ads, and to bar federal officeholders or candidates from raising the money. In a move of utter cynicism, foes of Shays- Meehan are planning to offer an amendment throwing out this small loophole, in hopes of forcing the bill into conference and killing it. At the same time, they will likely support an amendment widening the loophole to let state and local parties use the money in an unlimited fashion. There is really no principle at work by the foes of campaign reform. Their philosophy seems to be: Do whatever works to kill the bill, erode support or force the bill into a House- Senate conference, where Republican leaders in the House plan to bury it. There are other killer amendments to guard against. One would lift the ban on sham issue ads financed with soft money raised by supposedly independent groups. If this amendment passes, any candidate barred from raising soft money for a political party would simply raise it for a paper organization. Another so-called poison pill would invalidate the entire Shays-Meehan measure if one small part is declared unconstitutional. Still another might try to bar unions from raising money through dues deducted from worker paychecks, or bar legal alien residents from contributing to campaigns. We are not claiming that the Shays-Meehan bill is perfect. But we do urge lawmakers to beware of people saying they want to make it perfect. It is guaranteed that if the Shays-Meehan bill can overcome the malign intentions of its foes to kill it by stealth, and if it can get a straight up-or-down vote in the House, it will pass overwhelmingly. Lawmakers will be too afraid to vote against it. Many want to plunge in the knife and not leave fingerprints. Constituents need to tell their representatives that any attempt to amend the bill in the name of improving it should be seen for what it is - a plot to wreck the biggest opportunity in a generation to reform a corrupt system. nytimes.com