[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What Firewall? I still smell smoke
Charles Behney wrote:
> I think unremitting pressure and persuasion, like Ralph Nader's
> modus operandi, will prevail. I evangelize about the other
> monopolies beside MS at every opportunity. I've
> created a website for a congressional run: http://volgy.com
> to bend the ear of the state pols.
Yes, great! I'm working for Dick Lane, the Democrat
running in the 15th CD. Since Volgy is making
campaign finance a key campaign thread, you
may be interested in the attached about the faked support
our incumbent Republican gave campaign finance reform
here. I bet "rebel" Republicans in other districts have
done the same thing.
The roll call on the vote for H.R. 3820, described below,
is here:
http://clerkweb.house.gov/evs/1996/ROLL_300.asp
(You'll need to search for "3820")
The other interesting element is that our small
Santa Cruz newspaper is owned by Dow Jones (via the
Ottaway News Service).
Tod Landis
-------
Republican Tom Campbell and Campaign Finance Reform
The April 23rd Santa Cruz Sentinel carried a story from
the Ottaway News Service with the title "Campbell leads
GOP charge on campaign reform". The lead paragraph for
the story read:
True to his reputation as a maverick, Rep. Tom Campbell
was among the rebel Republicans in the House to sign a
petition to force a vote on change campaign finance laws.
And the story went on to describe Campbell's support for the
Shays-Meehan bill, which is opposed by the House leadership.
It reported that he joined other Republicans in signing the
Democrats' "Disclosure Petition", which would have forced a
vote on the Shays-Meehan bill. But by the time the article
appeared, Campbell had requested that his name be
removed from the Disclosure Petition and announced a "compromise"
with the Republican House leadership. (The compromise was
announced April 22nd; the article appeared on April 23rd)
The effect of this "oversight" was to give Campbell undeserved
credit for supporting campaign finance reform.
The Sentinel article also failed to report key Campbell
votes against campaign reform on earlier House bills.
In 1996, Campbell voted for H.R. 3820, the "Thomas Bill".
Common Cause strongly opposed the Thomas Bill, which "would have
codified and expanded the soft money system" and it failed to pass.
Persistent House Republican Thomas reintroduced his bl. In a KLIV
statement Campbell called the new version "a good, fair campaign
finance reform bill". (4/6/98)
Now compare Campbell's statement to this one by Common Cause,
which strongly opposed the new Thomas Bill:
Under the Thomas bill, Roger Tamraz could continue to funnel
$170,00 of soft money through state parties to curry favor with
the Administration as he did in 1996. And tobacco companies could
continue to launder soft money through the state parties in order
to influence federal elections as they did in 1996. And media mogul
Rupert Murdoch could continue to run $1 million in soft money
through the California Republican party, as he did during the
1996 presidential campaign, while he was seeking favorable
treatment in Washington on federal telecommunications legislation.
Campbell voted for the new Thomas Bill, too, but it failed to pass
because of opposition from Democrats. Here is House Democrat George
Miller, who endorses a ban on all soft money, speaking to Congress:
The best and most recent example of the power of soft money in
politics is the $50 billion tax give-away to tobacco companies
that was inserted in the middle of the night just before passage
of the balanced budget and tax cut bill this summer. Former
Republican Party Chairman Haley Barbour reportedly was behind that
amendment and Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Lott put it in
the bill. Tobacco companies, of course are the largest
contributors of soft money to political parties.
The Sentinel is owned by the Ottaway News Service, which is owned
by Dow Jones.
More at: http://todlandis.com/ncdc/campbell.html