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: Glenn Petersen who wrote (24116)	1/13/2004 1:44:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793858

This is an "insiders" issue that nobody pays attention to. But if the ruling goes against the Dems, it will really hurt. GOP Urges Wider Ban on 'Soft Money' FEC Asked to Rule on '527' Organizations That Raise Unlimited Funds By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, January 13, 2004; Page A04 The Republican National Committee today will ask the Federal Election Commission to ban the raising of $300 million or more in "soft money" by pro-Democratic groups seeking to pay for voter mobilization and TV ads in this year's elections. The request marks a reversal of traditional Republican opposition to regulating political money. Democrats say the shift is motivated by the GOP's recognition that tougher regulation might work to Democrats' disadvantage. The Republican request would restrict most political spending to smaller "hard money" contributions. The Republican Party and President Bush hold a substantial advantage over Democrats in raising such money because many of their supporters are able and willing to write campaign checks of several thousand dollars. Last year, the Republicans' national, senatorial and congressional campaign committees raised nearly $183 million in limited hard money, more than twice the $81 million raised by Democratic committees, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a Web site that tracks political money. Bush, in turn, has raised about $131 million in hard money, three times the $41 million raised by his closest Democratic competitor, Howard Dean. The Republican request takes aim at efforts by Democratic strategists such as Harold Ickes, former aide to President Bill Clinton, and Steve Rosenthal, former AFL-CIO political director. They have set up special political committees know as "527s" for a section of the tax code. These committees have begun accepting unlimited soft money donations as large as $10 million from financier George Soros, unions and other liberal benefactors to conduct voter mobilization and run ads in at least 15 battleground states. In 2002, Congress approved the McCain-Feingold law barring the national political parties and federal candidates from raising and spending such soft money. Soft money includes all contributions made directly from corporate or union treasuries, and individual donations of more than $25,000 to a political party or $2,000 to a federal candidate. "It is now incumbent upon the FEC to not sanction the undermining and evasion of [the McCain-Feingold law] through the activities of newly formed 527 organizations dedicated to electing or defeating specific federal candidates," wrote RNC lawyer Charles R. Spies. RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie -- whose group previously urged the Supreme Court to overturn McCain-Feingold -- pointedly asked his Democratic counterpart, Terence R. McAuliffe, to co-sign the letter to the FEC. McAuliffe said he would consider co-signing if Gillespie would expand the request's scope to cover such pro-Republican groups as Progress for America, United Seniors Association and Americans for Tax Reform, most of which use a different section of the tax code, "501." "I look forward to your reply," McAuliffe concluded his "Dear Ed" letter. James Jordan, spokesman for three pro-Democratic groups -- the Media Fund, America Coming Together and America Vote -- denounced the RNC action. "This is nothing more nor less than an another attempt by Republican special interests to silence progressive voices in an election year," he said. The RNC letter to the FEC marks an unlikely political marriage of convenience between the GOP and such campaign finance watchdog groups as Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center and the Center for Responsive Politics. The groups have outlined a legal case against 527s in communications to the FEC, and on Thursday they plan to announce further legal action. Conversations with some FEC members indicate the panel may be willing to take a tough enforcement stand toward 527s, both in response to a pending request for an advisory opinion and in broader rule-making. None of the commissioners was willing to commit to a specific policy, but Michael E. Toner, a Republican member, said that if independent but partisan groups are allowed to spend "hundreds of millions of dollars . . . a lot of people believe the McCain-Feingold law will be seriously undermined." © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: Glenn Petersen who wrote (24116)	1/13/2004 3:54:40 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793858

I think this initiative has a good chance of passing. The polling numbers I have seen are good. Woman who challenged U-M's admissions policy to lead ballot petition drive By David Runk / Associated Press Detroit News FARMINGTON HILLS -- One of the plaintiffs in the University of Michigan affirmative action cases said Monday she would lead an effort to seek a ballot initiative that would ban racial preferences at universities and other public agencies. Jennifer Gratz, who challenged Michigan's undergraduate admissions policies in a lawsuit, will serve as executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Gratz, who is white, was a Michigan resident with good grades and other qualifications when she was rejected at the flagship Ann Arbor campus. She since has graduated from another college. The MCRI wants to gather enough signatures to get a state constitutional amendment banning racial preferences on the November ballot. "Policies that classify people and divide people by race and gender ... is what is truly divisive," Gratz said as the group kicked off its petition drive at a news conference in this Detroit suburb. About a dozen opponents of the proposed amendment rallied outside the site of Monday's news conference, saying it would dismantle much-needed affirmative action programs in higher education and government. Those who want to ban racial preferences in Michigan announced their effort to get the issue on the ballot after the Supreme Court in June decided to uphold a general affirmative action program at the University of Michigan law school, but struck down the undergraduate school's formula of awarding points based on race. Last month, the Board of State Canvassers approved the petition forms. Supporters of the proposed constitutional amendment need to gather 317,757 signatures by July 6 for the measure to appear on the ballot. A group called Citizens for a United Michigan, a coalition including religious, civil rights and business leaders who oppose the initiative plan, has formed to fight the measure. That group planned to detail its efforts Tuesday in Lansing. "It will be divisive. It will open old wounds," Michael Rice, the head of the citizens group, said of the initiative. "If it passes, there will be consequences. These consequences will not be good for us." On the Net: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, mcri2004.org