Burnt Orange Report

Andrew,

While being on the unhappy end of Soro's political donations, not to mention the $75m in union efforts, is less than happy, I think what he is doing is fair, and the law shouldn't be changed to prevent it. He hates Bush, and wants to give his all to defeat him. I disagree, but if we get Pres. Rodham Clinton, I will feel exactly the same way ... though with a lot less cash to express my unhappiness with. If you want to use your wealth to try to persuade your fellow citizens of a certain point of view, by all means, even if you are dead wrong. That is the core of what the 1st ammendment protects. In an ideal world, the SCOTUS will strike down campaign finance "reform," and we won't have to deal with these Shadow committees that are popping up; Soros ought to be able to give his cash to the DNC directly, if he wishes. Even in an imperfect world, the constitution pretty much stops you from doing anything about it. I just hope we can find some uber-rich benefactors to counter Soro's influence.

Sherk

"That is the core of what the 1st ammendment protects."

Uh, huh? Money does not equal free speech. If it did, Bill Gates would have the freest voice in the country (or world, for that matter). That said, as long as we live in a world where Bush will raise and spend close to 200 million bucks without a Republican opponent, I'm glad there's people like Soros and B. Rappaport in Waco who have the financial means on the D side to help even the playing field.

Freedom of speech is more than the right to hold whatever ideas you desire; the first ammendment also protects your freedom to communicate with others, so long as they are willing to listen to you. I think we would all recognize that it would be a first ammendment violation if the law allowed anyone to write a book, but it needed government approval to get published, or that you were limited to a print run of 100 copies. Ditto with campaign ads. Free speech lets you communicate with your fellow citizens w/o the government saying that your opinions are unacceptable and cannot be promulgated.

Sherk

Sherk,

Well, if Soros is able to spend this much, anybody should be able to. McCain-Feingold, which Soros supports, surely ought to be repealed under this same logic.

However, the morally bankrupt, 'ends-justify-the-means' mentality of the left allows it to welcome this hypocrite with open arms.

I don't recall ever hearing a leftist complain about the foundation money pouring into the apparatus of the right. All we've done is point out the obvious economic self-interest at work for the billionaire moneybags. Moreover, no one has proposed legislation that I'm aware of limiting the ability of private citizens to contribute to non-party organizations.

So to impute "hypocrisy" to the left sounds more like projection to me, as in the right is quite comfortable lining up for Scaife money, but bitterly resentful when someone like Soros isn't on their team too.

Eat it, righties. Your reign is nearing its end.

anon,

I don't recall ever hearing a leftist complain about the foundation money pouring into the apparatus of the right.

Don't make me laugh. The left has been railing against 'shadowy billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife' for some time now. Let's not feign ignorance as to political realities, man...

Furthermore, the legendary complaints about 'issue-ads' were mainly directed at the activities of non-party organizations. And non-party groups are, in fact, regulated by McCain-Feingold. They can't publish advertisments mentioning a candidate within 60 days of an election -- nobody can.

Moreover, no one has proposed legislation that I'm aware of limiting the ability of private citizens to contribute to non-party organizations.

Well, duh. Buckley v. Valeo ruled such legislation unconstitutional. Accordingly, the left did, in fact, pass legislation that restricted contributions to non-party groups in the 70's. SCOTUS just slapped it down.

So to impute "hypocrisy" to the left sounds more like projection to me, as in the right is quite comfortable lining up for Scaife money...

Well, the 'right' doesn't generally support campaign finance restrictions. What's hypocrisy is demanding that campaign and party donations ought to be restricted due to the influence of the wealthy, and then turning around and giving gobs of money to a non-party group. Soros is doing exactly what he putatively despises. He's using his massive wealth to influence elections.

Eat it, righties. Your reign is nearing its end.

Translation: "Yea Macciavelli! The ends justify the means!"

So, to cut to the chase, you're disappointed that

a) Soros is acting against his economic self-interests by giving to organizations that oppose the massive transfer of wealth from everyone else on the planet to American billionaires; and

b) Democrats are refusing to unilaterally disarm and revealing themselves to be sober and pragmatic realists.

I for one as a true blue American left-liberal still believe in limiting the amount of money anyone can spend on political campaigns, but that needs to be done by *all* parties involved. For the Democrats and Democratic-leaning organizations to refuse legal donations based on some possible future campaign finance reform would be suicide if the Republicans continue raising and spending at a record-breaking rate. One has to be at the extreme end of the partisan hack spectrum to argue for that. As a rhetorical move, it's cute, but only that.

And, yes, I know that "self-interest" (as in, "it's in Dick Cheney's economic self-interest to see that Halliburton and its subsidiaries are awarded more no-bid contracts in Iraq") is both singular and plural. Thanks for caring.

Anon,

For the Democrats and Democratic-leaning organizations to refuse legal donations based on some possible future campaign finance reform would be suicide if the Republicans continue raising and spending at a record-breaking rate.

Well, there can't BE any future campaign finance reform. Buckley clearly ruled that donations to non-party groups cannot be restricted. Accordingly, if the goal of Soros and others was to reduce the influence of money in politics, they were either lying to themselves or to the American public. They knew these loopholes would exist because the Constitution demands them, and now they are exploiting these same loopholes to influence the electorate.

So yes, I will continue to cry foul. All campaign finance reform has done is shift the power from party organizations and campaigns to special interest groups. And just look who's reaping the benefits: Why it's none other than billionaire George Soros! Fancy that...