WASHINGTON - The Republican National Committee on Friday asked about 250 television stations to pull a liberal group's ads critical of President Bush.
The RNC sent the stations a letter Friday suggesting the outlets may be complicit in breaking campaign finance laws if they air the MoveOn.org Voter Fund ads. It asked them to decline to broadcast the ads.
The RNC argues that the group, financed by so-called "soft money," is spending it on ads to influence a federal election. The campaign finance law broadly bars the use of such corporate, union and unlimited donations to influence federal elections.
MoveOn began airing ads Thursday critical of Bush's policies. MoveOn founder Wes Boyd said the ads are legal, and added that the group isn't concerned by the RNC's letter. The ads were financed with unlimited donations from individuals - one form of soft money.
The ads were originally to air in 17 presidential battleground states over five days at a cost of $1.9 million. Boyd said the group decided Friday to spend $1 million more to run an ad criticizing Bush's economic policies for an additional week in several states.
In the letter, RNC chief counsel Jill Holtzman Vogel wrote, "As a broadcaster licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, you have a responsibility to the viewing public and to your licensing agency to refrain from complicity in any illegal activity, specifically in this case, violations of our nation's federal election laws."
Federal Election Commission spokesman Bob Biersack said the FEC could only determine whether there was anything amiss in the MoveOn ad buy by reviewing the details, something it typically would do if a complaint was filed against the group.
That's because, as usual, you don't understand the issue. The Federal Election Commission has already handed down a preliminary opinion that the money being used to finance the ads is coming from sources now illegal under McCain-Finegold. ~~~~~ "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
Yeah, the GOP likes to use soft money itself, but is running scared now that folk like George Soros and groups like MoveOn.org are meeting them head to head.
Btw, the commercials in question are really great.
> > scared? > > GOP wants ads that criticize Bush pulled
> Yeah, the GOP likes to use soft money itself, but is running scared > now that folk like George Soros and groups like MoveOn.org are meeting > them head to head.
> Btw, the commercials in question are really great.
Wouldn't you know it, the bipartisan moveon.org gets money from, among others, Theresa Heinz Kerry.
And, ob cors, the "independent" group Peaceful Tomorrows which has spearheaded the criticism of the Bush ads is a creation of the Tides Center, which is sponsored by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz Endowment - chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
But I'm sure they are non-partisan. Just like you, Paul!
>Yeah, the GOP likes to use soft money itself, but is running scared >now that folk like George Soros and groups like MoveOn.org are meeting >them head to head.
You're full of more shit than a Christmas turkey. The GOP has traditionally been the party of "hard" money, mostly in small donations. The Democrats have traditionally been the party of "soft" money, mostly in huge chunks from limousine-liberals. If you don't believe me look it up.
>Btw, the commercials in question are really great.
I wouldn't know.
Good luck, I hope this helps.
~~~~~ "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
>and bush has 200 million dollars from who knows where.
Again, we plumb the depths of your ignorance. Every dime is reported to the Federal Election Commission. You can go to the FEC's website and look up every single contributor and exactly how much each gave.
~~~~~ "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
BUSH RAISING CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM KERRY'S TOP CONTRIBUTORS
President Bush begins the head-to-head battle for the White House against Sen. John Kerry with a $100 million advantage in fund raising. For that, Bush can thank his incumbent status, his network of fund-raising Pioneers and Rangers -- and several of the top contributors to the Kerry campaign.
Nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush than to Kerry himself through Jan. 30 of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics' study of campaign finance reports filed this month with the Federal Election Commission.
The finding is one of many examples of Bush's fund-raising dominance, and it illustrates how much ground Kerry must make up to approach financial parity with the president. Bush raised a total of $145 million for his re-election effort in the first 13 months of the election cycle, dwarfing Kerry's $33 million.
Kerry's third-largest contributor, Citigroup, gave more than $79,000 in individual and PAC contributions to the presumptive Democratic nominee through January. Louis Susman, Citigroup's vice-chairman, is one of Kerry's biggest fund-raisers. But the financial services giant gave more than $187,000 to the Bush campaign during the same period, good enough for 12th on the president's list of top contributors.
Goldman Sachs contributed nearly $65,000 to Kerry through January, earning it the No. 6 ranking among Kerry's top givers. But the company's employees and PAC sent Bush nearly $283,000 -- more than four times the amount it gave to Kerry. Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson and managing director George Walker are Bush Pioneers who have raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.
Even MassMutual, which ranks among the biggest donors to Kerry over the past 15 years, has contributed more money to Bush than to its home-state senator in the current election cycle. The insurance conglomerate gave $69,000 to Bush through January, compared with slightly more than $50,000 to Kerry. MassMutual CEO Robert O'Connell was a Bush Pioneer in 2000.
In all, nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions. Kerry's top contributor, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, has given nearly $106,000 to his campaign. But the nation's largest law firm has contributed an additional $65,000 to the Bush campaign.
Kerry's No. 2 contributor, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, has been far more lopsided in its giving. The trial law firm has contributed nearly $92,000 to Kerry and just $4,000 to Bush. The firm's chairman, Mike Ciresi, is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers.
Two of Kerry's top donors -- Chicago-based Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday, the Boston-based ad firm -- have given no money to Bush. Bob Clifford of the Clifford Law Offices and Hill, Holliday Chairman Jack Connors are top fund-raisers for Kerry.
Half of Kerry's top contributors through January are law firms. Two-thirds of Bush's top contributors represent the financial sector. Bush's No. 1 financial supporter, with nearly $458,000 in individual and PAC contributions, is Merrill Lynch, the financial services firm that has topped the list of the president's contributors since he first began fund-raising last spring. Second among Bush's top donors is PricewaterhouseCoopers with nearly $430,000 in contributions.
Rank Contributor Total Contributions To Dems To Repubs Contributions Tilt
Here’s a quick highlight of the patterns within key industries in the energy sector:
Oil & Gas
When it comes to campaign contributions, the Republican Party’s ties to the oil and gas industry have been well documented to say the least. No longer is it a surprise to note that 78 cents out of every dollar the industry has contributed to federal parties and candidates over the last decade has gone to the GOP or that President Bush was the No. 1 recipient of the industry’s money during the last election. But here’s something you might not know: Bush, with more than $1.8 million in contributions, got more money from the industry during 1999-2000 than any other federal candidate over the last decade, barely eclipsing two fellow Texans in the process. Sen. Phil Gramm (R) is the No. 2 recipient of oil money since 1989, with $1.6 million from industry PACs and individuals, while his oil patch colleague Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) ranks second with $1.3 million. Texas-based companies dominate the industry’s giving. The most generous: the Houston-based Enron, the industry’s No. 1 contributor during 1999-2000 with more than $2.3 million in contributions, about $1 million more than No. 2 ranked Exxon-Mobil.
Electric Utilities
Electric utilities can spot an ally when they see one. The electricity industry heavily favored George W. Bush over Al Gore in last year’s presidential election, giving almost $7 to the Texas governor for every $1 they gave to the vice president. All told, Bush collected more than $447,000 in PAC and individual contributions from electric utilities, compared to just $65,000 for Gore. In fact, Bush’s two-year fund-raising total exceeds the cumulative amount that any other federal candidate has received from electric utilities over the last 10 years.
Overall, electric utilities gave 68 percent of their contributions to Republican candidates and parties in 1999-2000, just as they did in 1995-96. But the amount they contributed nearly doubled from one presidential election to the next, from $9.5 million to $18.9 million. The industry’s PAC contributions jumped from $4.8 million to $7.7 million during that time, while its soft money contributions increased from $3.6 million to $8.9 million. During this same period, the industry improved its ranking among the most generous industries, from 27th at the end of ’96 to 19th after last year.
Coal
Few industries wagered more heavily on Republicans during the last elections than coal mining, which handed over 88 cents out of every campaign dollar it contributed to the GOP during 1999-2000. Its $3.7 million in total giving was almost three times what the coal industry had given during 1995-96, the previous presidential cycle. No doubt, some of that generosity had something with George W. Bush, who was the industry’s top recipient with just over $110,000 in contributions. Yet the industry’s jump in giving last year can be credited more to its stepped-up soft money contributions. Coal mining interests anted up almost $2 million worth of soft money checks during the last elections, three-quarters of which went to Republicans. That’s three times what the industry gave during 1995-96, when its soft money giving amounted to just over $324,000.
Nuclear Power
The nuclear power industry was a generous contributor to federal parties and candidates during the 2000 elections. The Southern Co, Entergy and other companies that boast significant nuclear power divisions—as well as industry trade associations like the Nuclear Energy Institute—contributed roughly $13.6 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal parties and candidates during the last elections. More than two-thirds of that money went to Republicans. President Bush was the industry’s top individual recipient, taking in more than $290,000 during 1999-2000, while top recipients in Congress included Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), who received more than $100,000; Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who received nearly $93,000; and Sen. George Allen (R-Va.), who took in just over $80,000. Look for an expanded report on the industry’s political giving to be posted tomorrow on the Center’s Web site, www.opensecrets.org.
Alternative Energy Production and Services
Given all that was at stake for energy interests in the 2000 elections, the alternative energy industry—a category that includes wind, geothermal and solar power producers—wanted to make sure that elected officials knew it was watching. Though the dollars it gave are microscopic compared with other energy interests, the industry increased its overall giving by more than seven times between presidential elections, going from $100,974 in soft money, PAC and individual contributions in 1995-96 to just over $783,000 in 1999-2000. Much of that increase can be credited to the industry’s dramatic rise in soft money checks, which jumped to $631,000 during the last election—almost 60 times what the industry gave during 1995-96.
Perhaps not surprisingly, more than two-thirds of the industry’s giving during 1999-2000 went to Democrats, with Al Gore ($8,300) ranking as the industry’s top individual recipient. Yet that marked a major turnaround from 1995-96, when Republicans took the bulk of the industry’s money. That year, two Nebraska Republicans topped the list of recipients from the industry: Rep. Jon Christensen ($13,000 in individual and PAC contributions) and Sen. Chuck Hagel ($12,000).
#### Now it's President Bush's turn. Listed below are Bush's ambassadorial picks who contributed and/or raised generous amounts of money for Bush and the GOP in 1999-2000. For a complete list of Bush's ambassadorial nominees, go to the U.S. Department of State Web site.
Updated 1/13/03.
Nominee Total Contribs.* To All Repubs.* To All Dems.* Just to Bush*
AUSTRALIA J. Thomas Schieffer $4,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 AUSTRIA W.L. Lyons Brown $137,450 $137,450 $0 $6,000 BAHAMAS Richard Blankenship $32,000 $32,000 $0 $7,000 BELGIUM Stephen Brauer $413,830 $413,830 $0 $108,000 BELIZE Russell Freeman $3,750 $3,750 $0 $2,000 CHINA Clark Randt, Jr. $24,000 $24,000 $0 $3,000 COSTA RICA John Danilovich $21,000 $21,000 $0 $1,000 CZECH REPUBLIC Craig Stapleton $61,500 $61,500 $0 $9,000 DENMARK Stuart Bernstein $182,600 $182,600 $0 $9,000 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Hans Hertell $23,500 $23,000 $0 $3,000 FINLAND Bonnie McElveen-Hunter $107,750 $107,750 $0 $6,000 FRANCE Howard Leach $399,359 $399,359 $0 $114,000 GERMANY Daniel Coats $3,500 $3,500 $0 $0 HUNGARY Nancy Brinker $125,000 $125,000 $0 $29,000 INDIA Robert Blackwill $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 IRELAND Richard J. Egan $491,100 $480,100 $11,000 $112,000 ITALY Melvin Sembler $127,600 $127,600 $0 $107,000 JAMAICA Sue Cobb $139,250 $139,250 $0 $17,000 JAPAN Howard Baker $20,250 $20,250 $0 $1,000 LUXEMBOURG Peter Terpeluk $31,300 $31,300 $0 $8,000 MALTA Anthony Gioia $37,411 $36,411 $1,000 $10,000 MAURITIUS John Price $585,181 $585,181 $0 $120,000 MOROCCO Margaret Tutwiler $3,450 $3,200 $250 $1,000 NETHERLANDS Clifford Sobel $302,700 $299,700 $3,000 $109,000 NEW ZEALAND Charles J. Swindells $42,000 $42,000 $0 $6,000 NORWAY John Ong $182,985 $181,735 $1,250 $32,935 PORTUGAL John Palmer $167,850 $166,850 $1,000 $9,000 SAUDI ARABIA Robert W. Jordan $2,500 $2,500 $0 $1,000 SINGAPORE Frank Lavin $4,500 $4,500 $0 $3,000 SLOVAK REPUBLIC Ronald Weiser $45,250 $45,250 $0 $8,000 SPAIN George Argyros $135,000 $134,000 $1,000 $107,000 SWEDEN Charles Heimbold $367,200 $365,200 $2,000 $102,000 SWITZERLAND Pamela Willeford $2,700 $2,700 $0 $2,000 TANZANIA Robert Royall $30,500 $30,500 $0 $7,500 UNITED KINGDOM William S. Farish $143,875 $142,875 $1,000 $107,000 URUGUAY Martin Silverstein $40,575 $37,325 $2,250 $4,000
*Figures represent contributions from the individual and his/her immediate family to federal candidates, party committees, and leadership PACs. Columns listing total contributions, contributions to Republicans, and contributions to Bush include donations made to the Bush-Cheney recount fund, transition foundation, and inauguration committee. Contributions to Republicans include contributions to Bush. Figures are based on Federal Election Commission data.
This is a list of donors to the Bush-Cheney 2001 Presidential Inaugural Committee. The committee reportedly took in a record $40 million in private contributions for the inaugural festivities. The committee thus far has disclosed $28.8 million in contributions. (Click here and here and here for further analysis, including a look at industry giving to the committee.)
**Updated January 25, 2001
Donor City State Organizaton/Occupation Amount
A Duda & Sons Oviedo FL A Duda & Sons $5,000
Richard Aab Rochester NY US LEC Corp $25,000
Abbott Laboratories Abbott Park IL Abbott Laboratories $100,000
Scott Adams Boca Raton FL Cenetec LLC $20,000
ADI Enterprises Naples FL ADI Enterprises $20,000
AEGON USA Cedar Rapids IA AEGON USA $100,000
David Alameel Dallas TX Jefferson Dental Clinic $100,000
Martha Alameel Dallas TX Jefferson Dental Clinic $25,000
Mark Albrecht McLean VA Lockheed Martin $25,000
Anthony J Alexander Uniontown OH FirstEnergy Corp $100,000
Robert Allison Houston TX Anadarko Petroleum $25,000
Ruth Altshuler Dallas TX University of Texas/Southwestern Med Ctr $25,000
America Online Dulles VA America Online $100,000
American Council of Life Insurance Washington DC American Council of Life Insurance $100,000
American Financial Group Cincinnati OH American Financial Group $100,000
American Gas Assn Washington DC American Gas Assn $25,000
American International Group New York NY American International Group $100,000
Linus Amorsingh Washington DC $5,000
John Angelo New York NY Angelo Gordon & Co $100,000
> BUSH RAISING CAMPAIGN FUNDS > FROM KERRY'S TOP CONTRIBUTORS
Once again, you demonstrate you lack of understanding.
1. Please explain the difference between "hard money" and "soft money"
2. Please explain the limitations placed upon soft money by McCain-Feingold.
3. Please explain the differences between MCFL exemptions under the BCFRA and 527 and 501 groups, and how these are affected by the recent Supreme Court decision on BCFRA.
> > Yeah, the GOP likes to use soft money itself, but is running scared > > now that folk like George Soros and groups like MoveOn.org are meeting > > them head to head.
> > Btw, the commercials in question are really great.
>gets money from, among > others, Theresa Heinz Kerry.
So. That does not effect the non-partisan status. They can take money from any individuals regardless of party affiliation. Their actions must be done independently of any party consent. Other than that they are free to criticize Bush all they want.
> And, ob cors, the "independent" group Peaceful Tomorrows which has > spearheaded the criticism of the Bush ads is a creation of the Tides Center, > which is sponsored by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz > Endowment - chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Great. I thank them for this good work.
> But I'm sure they are non-partisan. Just like you, Paul!
I have non-partisan credentials. Currently I'm a board member of an organization chaired by a Republican. How about you?
> So. That does not effect the non-partisan status. They can take > money from any individuals regardless of party affiliation. Their > actions must be done independently of any party consent. Other than > that they are free to criticize Bush all they want.
Well, no. "Nonpartisan" is defined as "not partisan; especially : free from party affiliation, bias, or designation".
Are you prepared to say that MoveOn.org is not biased? Look at the opening page of their web site - they want to censure Bush, they claim Bush is harming the environment, and they have two glowing pieces about Al Gore, along with a contest to make anti-Bush ads. Why would anyone think they are biased in one way or another?
Hmmm. I think that an organization started to try to keep Bill Clinton from being impeached which thinks Al Gore is a great guy and knowledgeable speaker while repeating the canard that "Bush knew" (yup - like Clinton knew and still maintains he knows Saddam had WMD, a real pisser for the Dems, like Kerry knew as a member of the Senate Intelligence committees having the same intel as Bush, etc.) is a wee bit partisan.
I think when you *only* show one side, when you say *nothing* good about the other side, and where you solicit political action aimed at only one party, you are partisan.
But that's just me.
> > And, ob cors, the "independent" group Peaceful Tomorrows which has > > spearheaded the criticism of the Bush ads is a creation of the Tides Center, > > which is sponsored by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz > > Endowment - chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry.
> Great. I thank them for this good work.
Sure. I'm sure you think it great that a presidential candidate's wife funds organizations that claim to be nonpartisan representing 9-11 victims when in reality they are mouthpieces for the Dems.
"Honesty" and "Democratic politics" cannot be used in the same sentence with a straight face.
> > But I'm sure they are non-partisan. Just like you, Paul!
> I have non-partisan credentials. Currently I'm a board member of an > organization chaired by a Republican. How about you?
Paul, these are not "nonpartisan credentials". What organization? "Republicans against Bush"? I'm a Democrat for Bush. Doesn't that establish *my* nonpartisan qualifications? I join Sen. Zell Miller and Mayor Ed Koch in this.
BTW, what happened to your claim that the middle class and lower classes bore the brunt of Clinton's downsizing of the budget that only looked like an increase of the budget? Did you figure you had "taught" me enough about the subject?
Wow, I am glad you let up on me, because I was reduced to schoolgirl tears...
> > So. That does not effect the non-partisan status. They can take > > money from any individuals regardless of party affiliation. Their > > actions must be done independently of any party consent. Other than > > that they are free to criticize Bush all they want.
> Well, no. "Nonpartisan" is defined as "not partisan; especially : free from > party affiliation, bias, or designation".
Not in the sense recognized by federal laws.
Non-partisan simply means they act free of consent of any of the parties. There is no law that prevents them from accepting money from people registered to any political party.
Many non-partisan organizations may look like party-oriented depending on whether they are "conservative" or "liberal."
Many republicans now consider environmental organizations like the Sierra Club as "Democratic-leaning." But that says more about the swing in Republican ideology than anything else.
> BTW, what happened to your claim that the middle class and lower classes > bore the brunt of Clinton's downsizing of the budget that only looked like > an increase of the budget?
As far as I could see I taught you the usual free lesson. Or at least I tried, the concept that the simple dollar-figure of the budget was not meaningful unless adjusted seemed to fly over your head.
> Many non-partisan organizations may look like party-oriented depending > on whether they are "conservative" or "liberal."
> Many republicans now consider environmental organizations like the > Sierra Club as "Democratic-leaning." But that says more about the > swing in Republican ideology than anything else.
>> BTW, what happened to your claim that the middle class and lower >> classes bore the brunt of Clinton's downsizing of the budget that >> only looked like an increase of the budget?
> As far as I could see I taught you the usual free lesson. Or at least > I tried, the concept that the simple dollar-figure of the budget was > not meaningful unless adjusted seemed to fly over your head.
This guy is fucking unbelieveably dense he actually thinks he has something to teach anybody.
> >Many republicans now consider environmental organizations like the > >Sierra Club as "Democratic-leaning."
> Gosh, you think? Maybe their socialist agenda toward personal property rights > has something to do with it.
You've been reading to many survivalist mags in your fallout shelter.
The Sierra Club has members of all political persuasion who happen to agree on protecting the environment. What kind of agenda do they have against personal property rights -- no personal storage of weapons-grade plutonium perhaps?
> > >Many republicans now consider environmental organizations like the > > >Sierra Club as "Democratic-leaning."
> > Gosh, you think? Maybe their socialist agenda toward personal property rights > > has something to do with it.
> You've been reading to many survivalist mags in your fallout shelter.
> The Sierra Club has members of all political persuasion who happen to > agree on protecting the environment. What kind of agenda do they have > against personal property rights -- no personal storage of > weapons-grade plutonium perhaps?
Try to keep up, Paul. The environmentalists in collusion with local and state governments are using the power of imminent domain to steal land from farmers, ranchers and homeowners to "protect" it. See ongoing struggle in the South Bay near you.
> > > So. That does not effect the non-partisan status. They can take > > > money from any individuals regardless of party affiliation. Their > > > actions must be done independently of any party consent. Other than > > > that they are free to criticize Bush all they want.
> > Well, no. "Nonpartisan" is defined as "not partisan; especially : free from > > party affiliation, bias, or designation".
> Not in the sense recognized by federal laws.
> Non-partisan simply means they act free of consent of any of the > parties. > There is no law that prevents them from accepting money from people > registered to any political party.
Actually, once again you are wrong. "Non-partisan" as recognized by federal election laws means not favoring one candidate over another, disseminating information on both sides equally and freely (see, for example, the Advisory Opinions from the FEC). Organizations that are truly nonpartisan are exempt from federal reporting obligations. The IRS also has strict standards, particularly regarding 501(c)(3) nonprofits. "To remain nonpartisan the group's focus should be on the broader issues and not make comparisons between candidate proposals or positions." http://www.npaction.org/article/articleview/396/1/162/
> Many non-partisan organizations may look like party-oriented depending > on whether they are "conservative" or "liberal."
Once again, you confuse "nonpartisan" with "not party sponsored." When a group supports one candidate over another, they are partisan.
> Many republicans now consider environmental organizations like the > Sierra Club as "Democratic-leaning." But that says more about the > swing in Republican ideology than anything else.
Of course. Just as conservatives believe the media which is supposedly nonpartisan is liberal (why they think this, I have no idea -- just because over 80% of journalists vote Democrat and the major newspapers always endorse Democrats is probably a statistical blip, uncorrected for inflation).
> > BTW, what happened to your claim that the middle class and lower classes > > bore the brunt of Clinton's downsizing of the budget that only looked like > > an increase of the budget?
> As far as I could see I taught you the usual free lesson. Or at least > I tried, the concept that the simple dollar-figure of the budget was > not meaningful unless adjusted seemed to fly over your head.
Sure. Just as you taught me Clinton cut the military in half when he didn't, cut jobs when unemployment dropped, ignored the fact that the budget figures I gave *were* adjusted for inflation, and showed me that the poor bear the burden of taxes when the lower 50% of wage earners pay 4% of the taxes collected.
Yes, master, you have taught me well...
If this is how you score when you *win* a debate, I'd hate to see the carnage when you admit *losing* a debate. Oh, I porget -- you never admit when you're wrong, so you can't win. Got it.
