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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (8239)	9/16/2003 1:30:56 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

For the Democrats, campaign finance reform was a question of "Be careful what you wish for." Even though Daschle and Pelosi supported the passage of far-reaching campaign finance reform last year, and many Democrats voted for it, campaign finance watchdog groups view Lenhard as an opponent of the law, known as McCain-Feingold after its Senate sponsors. Earlier this year, Lenhard signed a brief that the AFL-CIO submitted to a special federal court arguing that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. McCain will block Dems’ FEC choice hillnews.com By Alexander Bolton Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the charge to pass campaign finance reform last year, plans to block the nomination of labor lawyer Robert Lenhard to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). McCain charges that the Democratic nominee would undermine the new law, now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) nominated Lenhard, the associate general counsel for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), last month. AFSCME donated $6.5 million in so-called soft money to Democrats in 2001-2002. He was nominated to replace Commissioner Scott Thomas, widely regarded as the FEC’s most ardent proponent of rigorously enforcing campaign finance law. Thomas, whose term officially ended in April, had sought reappointment. He will continue to serve until he is replaced. Even though Daschle and Pelosi supported the passage of far-reaching campaign finance reform last year, and many Democrats voted for it, campaign finance watchdog groups view Lenhard as an opponent of the law, known as McCain-Feingold after its Senate sponsors. Earlier this year, Lenhard signed a brief that the AFL-CIO submitted to a special federal court arguing that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. The three-judge panel struck down part of the law, which is now being considered by the Supreme Court. Lenhard declined to comment. McCain’s opposition to Lenhard could complicate Republican efforts to find a replacement for Commissioner David Mason, whose term also ended in April. Republican party officials have knocked heads with Mason in the past over differing interpretations of election law and wanted someone “more reliable,” according to a party source. Nominations to the FEC — made up of three Republican-appointed and three Democratic-appointed commissioners — usually move through the Senate in bipartisan pairs. It is uncertain whether Democrats would allow a Republican nominee to clear the Senate if a Republican lawmaker blocks their own choice. Campaign finance insiders see Daschle’s and Pelosi’s support of Lenhard as an attempt to wriggle their party free from the strictures of McCain-Feingold, which many Democrats view as a major obstacle to their chances of regaining power. Lenhard’s nomination signaled a substantial change of heart on the part of Democrats about how they view campaign finance reform. They voted overwhelmingly for the bill when it passed Congress last year. Through the first six months of this year, the three national Republican fundraising committees, the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee, out-raised their Democratic counterparts $115.6 million to $44.1 million, FEC figures show. “I’m bitterly disappointed in Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle, that they would appoint someone opposed to campaign finance reform,” said McCain. “It’s a bitter pill.” McCain said that “without a doubt” he would block Lenhard’s nomination, which must be confirmed by the Senate. Comparing Thomas to the five other commissioners on the FEC, McCain said, “He was the best of them all.” “That’s what’s so disappointing,” McCain added. “He deserved reappointing. I guess Thomas’s lesson is no good deed deserves to go unpunished.” Thomas began his service at the FEC in 1975 as a legal intern and worked as an assistant general counsel and executive assistant to Commissioner Tom Harris before being appointed a commissioner himself in 1986. McCain’s opposition creates a significant hurdle for Democratic leaders. They wanted to put Lenhard on the commission before the beginning of next year, by which time the Supreme Court is expected to rule. One of the Democrats’ greatest concerns for 2004 is that they will be vastly outspent during the presidential campaign, especially in the months leading up to next summer’s Democratic convention, after which the party’s nominee will be able to use public funding. At a meeting with reporters last week, Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that President Bush’s election committee alone — not counting the RNC — would spend $250 million next spring. Many Democrats think they have a better chance of defeating Bush than capturing the Senate or House, but the funding disparity between the parties looms as a cloud over those hopes. Larry Noble, the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, railed against Daschle and Pelosi for trying to undermine the new law. “The people behind Lenhard and removing Thomas are the people who professed a belief in the new law and who argued for passage of the new law,” said Noble. “I’m talking about Daschle and Pelosi. They stated it was good policy and needed to be the law of the land. It’s tremendously cynical of them to put someone on the commission who is not going to enforce the law.” He added, “I suspect it reflects a nervousness about how the law will be enforced.”