Fred Thompson a “supporter” of BCRA

June 27, 2007 – 2:09 pm

I think that all the people who thought that Fred Thompson had suddenly become a campaign finance hater are going to be disappointed. From Marc Ambinder, reporting from South Carolina:

And, addressing Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act, Thompson said that while he remained a supporter of the bill and its intentions, he thought the court’s decision was sensible because, he implied, the sham issue ad provision "hasn’t worked" as intended.

"I think Congress ought to amend the campaign finance legislation, keep the good parts, and get rid of this part."

Is this what people thought then he said that BCRA "isn’t working?"

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Pandering better than authenticity?

June 26, 2007 – 10:51 am

Jennifer Rubin, over at Race42008, wrote a summary of the 2008 candidate responses to yesterday’s SCOTUS decision. At one point, she said:

Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani issued statements applauding the decision. Romney made no mention of prior support of campaign finance reform but his ringing endorsement of the Court’s decision was clearly welcome news to the conservative base which seems less concerned with consistency than with vocal support for their favored positions. Giuliani delayed comment until he had actually read the opinion and only after a review issued a careful statement making clear that on this point – issue ads in the heat of campaigns– he sided with the Supreme Court. As he did on partial birth abortion he seems to be taking reasoned steps which strengthen his position with conservatives without a wholesale repudiation of prior views.

Like support for comprehensive immigration reform, prior to running for President, all the major candidates were supportive of BCRA-style campaign finance reform. Indeed, Mitt Romney even went much, much farther. Now all but John McCain have backed away. And many conservatives pundocrats have demanded that he pander and flip-flop too.

So the pattern is clear. Run on some positions your whole life, then change them to win the nomination. Then what?

Is that a healthy way for a political party or a political movement to behave? What does this say about our intellectual class?

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (6)

SCOTUS allows WI RTL ads

June 25, 2007 – 11:32 am

Today, the Supreme Court overruled a district and appellate court and allowed issue ads within the "window". Stated intelligibly, issue ads will not be regulated. However, it looks like a fairly narrow ruling:

The Court issued its fifth ruling of the day, concluding that a Wisconsin abortion rights group had a First Amendment right to aid during election season campaign ads that named a candidate running for the Senate. Three of the five Justices in the majority urged the Court to overturn the part of a 2003 ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the federal law restricting such radio and TV ads close to elections. The Chief Justice’s main opinion, joined fully by Justice Alito, said the case did not provide an occasion to revisit that ruling. Justice Souter recited at length from the bench for the four dissenters — who were in the minority in four of the five rulings on Monday. The ruling came in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-969) and a companion case.

Presumably this means that there will be no challenges to the issue ads, while BCRA will stay on the books. And, presumably, NRLC and Jim Bopp will try to find another way to challenge the new status quo to continue to undermine BCRA. Who knows how this will play out.

As I have indicated previously, it seems clear that allowing these ads was the constitutional thing to do. Good for the court. It will be interesting to see how conservative pundits discuss this. I could see a lot of dissatisfaction with how narrow and respectful of precedent it is. Will this be an indicator for Alito and Roberts judgments in the future? Will that become an issue?

Tags: ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Romney attacks Thompson on campaign finance

May 31, 2007 – 6:24 pm

Well, well, Fred Thompson gets in and flip-flopping pandering Mitt Romney drops the hammer on Thompson over campaign-finance reform. You will recall that this is the same Mitt Romney who was against public funding of campaigns in 1994, for it in 2002, and now against it. And the same one who was for radical campaign finance reform, well to the left of McCain-Feingold.

So what is going on? Mitt Romney is scared of Fred Thompson. David Yepsen explained why Thompson seriously damages Romney in Iowa. Over to Yepsen:

There is some evidence to suggest Thompson would hurt Romney, one of the three front-runners in Iowa, by entering the race.

It comes by comparing two polls of likely GOP caucus-goers taken during May.  The Iowa Poll, taken by the Des Moines Register, did not include Thompson, who has not formally announced.  But the American Research Group poll, taken by a Manchester, NH research firm, did include Thompson.

When you compare the findings of the two polls, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain actually increase their support if Thompson is in the race.  Romney drops.

Yepsen also says:

But Romney’s also been plagued by talk he’s a flip-flopper on conservative issues, while Thompson’s conservative credentials are solid. And Thompson also seems like an electable candidate to many Republicans who have been dissatisfied with the 2008 field.  So, GOPers looking for good, electable conservative may well move from Romney to Thompson.

Now, the thing that could save Romney is that he’s running a fantastic campaign (too bad about the candidate) and Thompson might not work hard enough.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (8)

Romney, 1994 flier, and consistency

May 30, 2007 – 11:01 am

A number of Mitt Romney’s supporters have pulled out a 1994 campaign flier and argued that it shows that he has always been a conservative. First of all, one might wonder why a conservative in 1994 would have opposed the Contract with America and called it "partisan".. That wasn’t my reading of it.

I was struck by how much he has moved around on a number of these issues. The question shouldn’t be whether or not he was a real conservative. Instead it should be, what kinds of principles, if any, he has, and how they will relate to how he would govern if he were to become president. So let’s look at this with that in mind.

First of all, we need to realize what this is. It is a political communication. He tried to differentiate himself from Kennedy on some things and blend the differences on others. So, as a political communication, he is saying that the only thing that he agrees with Ted Kennedy on is abortion and gay rights. And on abortion he argued that he was more trustworthy to pro-choicers than Ted Kennedy because Ted Kennedy had flip-flopped(!!!). And on gay rights, he argued that he would be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy.

The second point to make is that Romney’s image has several problems. The first one is that he’s a simple "flip-flopper". But the second is that he’s a sleazy panderer. The car salesman thing. That he will tell you whatever you need to hear for you to support him. That he has no principles. That’s what really struck me with this.

So, to illustrate, let’s do a little exercise. Let’s take a couple of these issues and see where Romney has gone with these since 1994

First, abortion. Romney’s story is that he changed his position over the stem-cell fight in 2004. But it is worth pointing out that Romney was also sounding pro-life in 2001  when he was considering running for office in Utah. His problem isn’t that he converted. It is that he converted and reconverted and reconverted and reconverted. All occurring while he was running for office and well into middle age and parenthood.

Or, look at his position on campaign finance reform, under the heading of "Congressional Reform." In this 1994 flier, he says that he opposed Taxpayer Financed Campaigns. But in 2002, he supported partial public funding of campaigns, even supporting taxing private contributions to pay for public funding. Now, presumably, he’s against it. So this is his third position on campaign finance reform.

Or, look at this positions on health care. He did not support either a "government takeover of health care" or "requir[ing] employer mandates". But he did sign a health care plan, with the same Ted Kennedy that he is differentiating himself from in this flier, that included employer and individual mandates. (Indeed, it looks like Barack Obama’s health care plan is, in some sense, to the right of Romney’s. Ezra Klein points out that Obama’s plan does not mandate that people purchase health care, whereas Romney’s creates criminal sanctions if you do not)

Tables are often clarifying:

  Romney in 1994 Romney in-between Romney Today
Abortion Pro-choice Pro-life, then pro-choice Pro-life
Public funding of campaigns Against For Against
Employer mandates Against ?? For

"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind."

Tags: , , , ,

By eye | Comments (2)

Why is Romney talking about campaign finance laws?

April 25, 2007 – 11:24 am

Because he is pandering. It is that simple.

Five years ago Mitt Romney believed in public funding of campaigns and taxing political contributions.

Thirteen years ago he believed in outlawing political action committees. 

Ramesh Ponnuru, after studying Romney’s position on campaign finance laws concluded that, "All told, those positions place him to the left of McCain-Feingold."

Don’t believe me? Watch (H/T Caucus Cooler):

(Perhaps Romney is personally pro-campaign finance reform but publicly not?)

It is a wonder that Romney’s hair doesn’t blow in the wind while the rest of him does.

By the way, I hope that Jim Bopp and Wisconsin Right to Life prevail today.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (5)

More on McCain and campaign finance

March 28, 2007 – 7:56 am

Yesterday, I criticized an egregious misquoting (turns out the misquoting was not original. Derrida and Searle would be proud of a bunch of conservatives arguing about the authorship of Jason quoting Human Events quoting McCain quoting the Supreme Court…) of one of the YouTubes that Matt Lewis and I took on the Straight Talk Express. Matt pushed back, saying:

In my view, Soren is being too hard on MyManMitt. Yes, technically McCain was misquoted — but not misrepresented.  It is clear that McCain agrees with the courts — that’s why he is quoting them. In my view, this is a matter of semantics (and not worth flaming somebody over).

I do not think that this is "just" semantics. In putting together the final law that passed, I assume that John McCain and company went to the legal decisions. In one of the cases, the actual sentence, "money is not speech. Money is property". As Scalia pointed out in his dissent to the actual BCRA decision, McConnell v FEC, this was actually the building block for upholding BCRA. In other words, McCain is not just quoting the court, he is quoting the operative idea behind the court uphold (rightly or wrongly) the constitutionality of the law.

In other words, McCain is himself quoting the legal concept underlying what he believes to be the constitutionality of some or all of BCRA in support of his law. That’s how I understand that. Now, does McCain also believe that? Probably. But I think it is far to pithy an question.

Now, I have criticized this law too. I even called the window provision that is being challenged in FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life "noxious". So I asked McCain about this provision, and here is what he said:

I am not persuaded by this answer. I should have asked a follow up about what would really be eroded by this? That said, I am impressed that I could ask a question like this and get an answer like this. Hopefully another blogger, possibly even me, will be on the bus again, and they can ask this follow up.

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (0)

Running on repealing BCRA??

March 17, 2007 – 3:33 pm

Now, maybe I’m crazy. But I think that this talk of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson running on repealing BCRA is politically lunatic.

In 2008, Republicans are going to be running into headwind on ethics and corruption. The VP’s Chief of Staff was just convicted of a felony. People are talking about the Attorney General resigning because of political hiring-and-firing and lying to Congress. Three Republican members of Congress either plead guilty or were convicted of crime in the 109th Congress. There are still investigations swirling over a couple of more. And a Democratic Congress is going to be investigating and making, mostly fraudulent (like their voting) hay out of this.

Rebuilding the image of the GOP is the first priority. Dealing with the spending — clearly tied to corruption. Holding ourselves to higher ethical standards, preferably by standards of behavior rather than regulation or legislation. Showing allegiance to our principles, rather than our donors.

And what would repealing BCRA actually mean at this point? By March of next year, it is very possible that the most noxious limitations will be struck down in Wisconsin RTL v FEC. That would leave the soft money limitations, some of the coordination laws (which are really the same thing), and the increase in contribution limits.

I don’t get it. This is not a winning issue for Republicans.

Tags: , , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Fisking Romney’s Campaign Finance Rebuttal

February 9, 2007 – 11:00 am

Mitt Romney got slammed yesterday for flip-flopping on campaign finance reform. First The Hill wrote about it and then Caucus Cooler, a great Iowa blog, got his hands of Romney on C-SPAN video sounding like a wild-eyed campaign finance reform radical (below too).

Then the Romney campaign sent out talking points rebutting the allegation that he flip-flopped on this too. But these talking points simply aren’t honest (not a surprise from the Mittster).

Purely on a process note, this is poor rapid response. Off topic rebuttal. Weak on the facts. And not in the same medium as the attack. Sorry Mitt, Carl, and Kevin. Try again next time.

Myth vs. Fact: Campaign Finance Reform

Thursday, Feb 08, 2007

MYTH: Governor Romney Has "Flip-Flopped" On Campaign Finance Reform.

Does this mean that Mitt Romney stands by his old positions or not? Taxing political contributions, spending limits, and abolishing PACs?

FACT: Governor Romney Has Always Supported Transparency And Disclosure In The Campaign Finance System.

Note how this doesn’t rebut the actual claims made about Romney. Instead, he tries to change the subject. We are saying that he either has radical ideas on campaign finance reform or has flip-flopped. Which is it Mitt? (Or Kevin or Carl?)

MYTH: In 2002, Governor Romney Supported "Dramatic Changes" To Massachusetts’ Campaign Finance System When He Proposed Altering How Campaigns Were Funded.

I would call funding publicly-financed elections through a tax on contributions a "Dramatic Change" wouldn’t you?

FACT: Governor Romney Supported Changing The Clean Election Law So Taxpayer Money Would Not Be Used To Fund Campaigns. When That Could Not Be Done, Governor Romney Supported The Law’s Repeal.

Trying to change the subject. Romney supported taxing political contributions. Imagine if 10% of Romney’s political contributions were redirected to Mike Huckabee. How would he feel about that? Does he disagree with that position or has he flip-flopped?

Mitt Romney wants you to believe that he is a 1st amendment protecting, 2nd amendment protecting, red blooded conservative. Instead he wants to tax political contributions. That’s quite a makeover from  this, which neither he nor Kevin Madden have ever disavowed:
 

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (1)

Romney Mitt-floppery on campaign finance reform

February 7, 2007 – 9:22 pm

The Hill reports that in 2002 Mitt Romney advocated radical campaign finance reform:

“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”

Romney advocated taxing political contributions to support candidates who stayed within spending limits.

Romney also wanted to ban political action committees:

A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).

Romney said:

“And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”

That’s real "fire in the belly". He really sounds like he believed it.

However, Romney’s newly-minted (Mitted?) position was a big applause line at the RSC meeting:

“Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’” one conservative Republican said. “The place erupted. That was by far the biggest applause line.”

So far, Mitt has flip-flopped on abortion, gay-rights, taxes, guns, embryonic stem-cell research, Ronald Reagan, the Contract with America, and, now, campaign finance-reform.

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council captures the essence of the Romney absurdity:

“Of course, this was Mitt Romney in 2002. Who knows? He might have changed his mind on that,” he said. “He always seems to want to come back to the table.”

Tags: , ,

By eye | Comments (5)