On November 13, the Republican National Committee, and the California Republican Party, jointly filed in a lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., to overturn parts of the McCain-Feingold law. The case is Republican National Committee v Federal Election Commission, 1:08cv-01953-RJL.
The case is not seeking to overturn the federal limit on how much money may be contributed to a political party. Instead, the lawsuit attacks the part of the McCain-Feingold law that restrict what parties can do with the money they raise, and the part of the McCain-Feingold law on the scope of the federal limits.
The federal law bans state political parties from using “state” money (i.e., money raised under state campaign finance restrictions) for anything connected to a federal election campaign. Therefore, state political parties can’t use the funds they raised under state regulations for such things as voter registration activity in even-numbered years, and communications that talk about federal candidates.
The federal law bans national political parties from soliciting donors to give to state political parties (unless the federal limits are respected). Generally, state restrictions are less severe than federal restrictions. The lawsuit says the Republican National Committee wants to solicit funds for state elections scheduled in New Jersey and Virginia in 2009, and that it wants to create a Redistricting Account to help Republican state legislators work on redistricting, and it wants to raise funds for its own lawsuit. It wants to raise these funds in various states, subject only to the campaign finance restrictions imposed by those states. But the McCain-Feingold law makes all that illegal, unless the federal limits are respected.
Hmmmmmmmm. This is a self stated ‘progressive’ reflectoryet when I [Donald Raymond Lake] make progressive statementswhich do not flatter the Democans, and much less beligerent Mister Vafi, many such messages ‘get lost’………..
— DonLake@localnet.com:
From: Toni Vafi
The Function of the Democratic Party
To: changeformissouri@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 7:11 PM
this was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting
On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Tom Chapin wrote:
> Someone on Alternet posted this as a reply to a Naomi Klein article.
>
> I’m having a hard time disagreeing with it…
>
>
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/107000/wall_street%27s_bailout_is_a_trillion-dollar_crime_scene_–_why_aren%27t_the_dems_doing_something_about_it_/
>
> Posted by: chlamor on Nov 14, 2008 7:32 AM
>
> The Function of the Democratic Party in the Political System- Part One
>
> The Democratic Party plays an indispensable role in society’s
political
> machinery. This doesn’t mean it has any power, in terms of
controlling
> the state or setting policy. It means that without the existence of the
> Dem Party, the US could no longer maintain the pretense that it’s a
> “democracy.” If the Dem Party disintegrated, the US would be
revealed
> for what it really is — a one-party state ruled by a narrow alliance of
> business interests.
>
>
> For the Democratic Party to even begin to serve as a vehicle for
> opposing the absolute rule of capital, it would at a minimum have to be
> capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests
> of capital and the rest of the population; and of expressing a
> principled determination to take the side of the population in this
> conflict.
>
> A party whose controlling elements are millionaires, lobbyists,
> fund-raisers, careerist apparatchiks, consultants, and corporate
> lawyers; that has stood by prostrate and helpless (when not actively
> collaborating) in the face of stolen elections, illegal wars, torture,
> CIA concentration camps, lies as state policy, and one assault on the
> Bill of Rights after the next, is not likely to take that position.
>
>
If we are going to have free speech and free elections ALL campaign contribution and spending rules, regulations and laws must be abolished.