CFR -- It was supposed make it more difficult for Republicans to raise money and thus win elections.

I know this is trite, but I can't help saying it again. Imagine what would be going on in the media, Hollywood, etc. if an uber-rich Republican was making it is life's work (at the moment) to defeat a Democrat incumbent?

Frightening isn't it.

Yes, when the message isn't working, turning up the volume will help. For all the idiotic protests and liberal propaganda that money will produce, Soros might as well have just put it directly into Bush's bank account.

But hey, that might propel Dean to a solid 20-25% of the national vote...woo hoo!

That WaPo article read like one of Ayn Rand's fictional news stories out of "The Fountainhead".

Very simple. Any reforms promoted by liberals are designed to inhibit the activity of conservatives, reactionaries, neofascists, etc. When reforms conflict with progressive goals, however, they do not apply.

It may help liberals, but it's meant to keep incumbents in office.

And as far as I can tell, the only thing it has accomplished is to limit our First Amendment rights, and to encourage people to find more loopholes.

The strange thing is that campaign finance reform was always a losing proposition for the Democratic Party. Despite the stereotype of the fat-cat Republican, Democrats have historically been more likely to be funded by a few wealthy individuals. That's because the constituents that the Dems try to represent usually don't have enough disposable income to be making $1000 donations, so it's up a to a few enlightened and "high-minded" individuals to fund liberal ideologies. Wasn't McGovern funded by an insurance tycoon?

Go George! Gotta love this guy. Although hopefully he will also pay some retired texas trooper and a few trailer trash women to pretend Bush was a rapist as well.

Then again that would make him slime like Scaife, so keep giving to moveon.org Mr Soros.

Let's face it. As I tell my students, *any* campaign laws (finance or whatever) might as well be titled "The Incumbents Re-election Proctection Act" because all these damn bills are written by people who wake up every morning thinking, "What can I do today to get re-elected." Any who don't are either preparing to retire or to get beat.

I'm sure I missed the memo. Once upon a time in your circles MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS were championed as FREE SPEECH.

Has that changed?

No, mellifluous, that hasn't changed. Money contributions ARE free speech. Nobody is suggesting that Soros be prevented from giving his money to whoever the hell he wants. We're merely pointing out the double standard that erp mentioned in his comment. And we have the right to criticize Soros' choice of beneficiaries. After all, I'm sure you've never said anything the slightest bit uncomplimentary about Richard Mellon Scaife...

Disturbingly, after reading that article, I see that I'm going to have to change my car insurance carrier. I had been praising Progressive to high heaven to friends, family and passerby.

It'll be more than worth it for the $30 a year more to know that it's not going to Moveon or ACT.

What's scarier is Soros's idiotic comments at a conference the other day, where he also said his having money and power also contributes or is partly responsible for the image which Mathir stated, that Jews control the world. What a fucking idiot this guy is! And he said other things that are not only stupid but pathetic.

You're missing the point of campaign finance laws. It's for liberals to 'get their guy in'.

Posted by: James on November 11, 2003 07:47 AM

Despite the stereotype of the fat-cat Republican, Democrats have historically been more likely to be funded by a few wealthy individuals. .... Wasn't McGovern funded by an insurance tycoon?

I don't know about McGovern, but Eugene McCarthy was funded by Stewart Mott (if memory serves). McCarthy has publicly opposed Campaign Finance Reform, because it would stop campaigns like his going against an incumbent. Which gets us to the real reason for CFR, incumbent self-protection.

I believe the average Republican donation is something like $100, while the Democrats average is the maximum $1000. Now, the stupid party does nothing to trumpet it's grassroots support in comparison to the limousine liberals funding.

Soros has turned out to be a real idiot. He should stick to currency manipulation.

Another fool and his money are parted. It's one way to keep the economy moving.

I blogged about this guy last night. Methinks there is more behind this guy's ravings than a simple desire to oust Bush. But I haven't sussed it out. Follow the money as the Deep One once said.

Guys like Soros annoy me because they clearly don't believe in liberty. All this does is remind me of *why* he feels its a matter of life-and-death to defeat Bush: Soros didn't want tax cuts and objected to eliminating the estate tax.

Well, fine George. Repealing that doesn't mean *forcing* you to leave your wealth to your worthless heirs. Put a clause in your will leaving it all to the federal government if you prefer (though I suppose he'll pick the UN). Trust me, they'll accept the money.

But that just highlights the fact that for guys like Soros, it isn't *REALLY* about them not wanting tax cuts for themselves; it's about them wanting to compell others to do what they think should be done (meanwhile, no doubt he finds whatever tax dodges he can, squeezing out the max from every loophole, so he'll have more to donate to political causes to insure that others are compelled to pay higher taxes and follow stricter government regulations).

" Imagine what would be going on in the media, Hollywood, etc. if an uber-rich Republican was making it is life's work (at the moment) to defeat a Democrat incumbent?"

Um, you mean like Richard Mellon Scaife?

I think Soros is nutty, but it's not like he's the first rich nut to pour millions into making his opinions facts.

"Um, you mean like Richard Mellon Scaife?"

Exactly... he drove the left batty but somehow this is okay.

the whole idea that liberals enacted the bcra in order to make it harder for republicans to get elected is total nonsense. before bcra was enacted, democrats were told that it would make it harder for them to raise money, and republicans were told it would give them a fundraising edge. this is exactly what has happened. for whatever reason, both parties voted against their economic interests. the atlantic monthly, hardly a liberal publication, recently ran a first rate story on this issue.

Of course, the CFRA was supposed to, um, get the money out of politics.

Yeah. Worked like a champ. Worked so well that for the first time democrats are going to bypass public financing (Dean will not be the only one, mark my words).

Of course, if it only took money, then we would all be saying President Perot. Or President Forbes.

Of course, $5 million to moveon.org just makes them louder, not necessarily more effective. I mean, you can only make so many "No blood for oil!" and "Bush=Hitler" signs, right?

For its congressional backers, CFR was intended to achieve three main goals:

*Get good press for its backers. Mission Accomplished.

*Further reduce the ability of challengers to finance runs against incumbent congresspersons. Jury's still out, but looking good.

*Build a case for even more sweeping "reforms" after this one fails. Mission Definitely Accomplished.

(For Bush, of course, it was intended to eliminate a primary challenge by John McCain and raise the hard-money caps; both of these were accomplished as well).

The operation was a success! Who cares about the patient?

He gave money to MoveOn.org! What a bonehead!

Also, he reflects the emotional desperation among many people to oust President Bush. Calling it a 'matter of life and death' is such a lame thing to say.

Conclusion? He's high on his own stench.

I just cancelled my Real One Superpass subscription after reading the article. The guy on the phone laughed when he heard my reason "Your CEO's idiotarian political activity."

Next call is Progressive insurance, I should have known that an insurance company called "progressive" is really just a code word for "liberal".

Let you money do the talking, folks.

Check out the McCain quote at the end of this story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14377-2001Apr27.html

Billionaire's Gun Control Role Is Debated
Middle-of-the-Road Advocacy and Infusion of Cash Stir Controversy on All Sides

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 29, 2001; Page A10

Last summer, Andrew McKelvey decided he knew how to break the impasse that has dogged the gun control debate: Acknowledge Americans' right to own guns, but say that these rights come with responsibilities.

If he had been an ordinary gadfly, McKelvey might have gone unnoticed. But as the owner of Monster.com, the job search Web site, the billionaire New York businessman used his wealth to position himself at the center of the gun control movement -- and to emerge as its dominant force.

The ascension of his advocacy group, Americans for Gun Safety, has altered the national debate over guns. At a moment when the steam has seemingly gone out of congressional efforts to enact tougher gun control laws, McKelvey's supporters hail him as a potential savior who can attract a broader constituency to their cause.

Many longtime advocates of tougher gun control laws, however, charge that his endorsement of gun ownership is dooming the gun control movement by watering down its message.

No one questions McKelvey's influence. His group's $3 million advertising campaign in Colorado and Oregon helped propel to victory in November ballot initiatives seeking background checks at gun shows. His staff is now helping craft a new gun show proposal on the federal level that Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) plan to unveil within a matter of weeks.

A political novice, McKelvey, 66, used his personal fortune to assemble a formidable political network that gave him access to policymakers and made his organization a critical contributor to state gun control groups. He hired top officials from the Clinton administration and Republican congressional aides, picking Jonathan Cowan, who was Andrew M. Cuomo's chief of staff at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as his group's president. He commissioned polls from Democrats Mark Mellman and Mark Penn as well as from Republican John Zogby, and also hired GOP image-maker Greg Stevens to film issue advertisements on the group's behalf.

McKelvey, who marvels at his sudden access to national leaders -- "I'm about as apolitical as it comes. I don't know anybody" -- says his group is simply being pragmatic. "I try to work on things in which we can have some results," he says.

A plainspoken man, he dismisses the notion some hold that a searing personal experience drew him into the debate over gun violence. "They want to know, 'Did you have a brother shot?' The answer is 'no,' " he says. "All these kids just kept getting shot in schools."

His group's drive to pass measures requiring gun show background checks in Colorado and Oregon bore all the hallmarks of a traditional campaign. In Oregon, the group paid for a half-million phone calls and a quarter-million pieces of direct mail to voters, in addition to running television advertisements featuring McCain's support for the initiative.

McKelvey compared the McCain ads his group ran in Colorado and Oregon to the catchy television commercials his Web site pioneered. "Advertising, particularly television advertising, is certainly an effective vehicle," he says.

Now, the group has expanded nationwide, running ads in favor of closing the gun show "loophole" -- which allows people in 32 states to buy weapons at gun shows without undergoing background checks -- and providing tens of thousands of dollars in funding for state groups.

Despite the shot in the arm Americans for Gun Safety has given to the gun show issue, many advocates of stricter gun laws are critical of McKelvey's efforts.

Violence Policy Center public policy director Joe Sudbay notes that the group's focus on gun shows addresses just a small part of a much larger problem. He says McKelvey is using his money to try to get cash-strapped state gun control advocacy groups to support his middle-of-the-road approach -- at the risk of undermining the broader gun control effort.

McKelvey offered $60,000 to any state group willing to become a "chapter" of his organization. Although many of these affiliates balked once they discovered that the organization's mission statement endorses gun ownership, McKelvey allowed them to keep the one-year grants.

"I think he was trying to do a hostile takeover of the gun control movement," Sudbay says.

Sudbay is equally critical of McCain and Lieberman's gun show proposal, which would allow private gun show dealers to move to a 24-hour background check in three years if the attorney general certifies they are able to access files on 95 percent of buyers.

Lieberman, who says he and McCain became convinced that the gun issue had become too polarized after they both campaigned for national office last year, defends McKelvey's efforts, saying he may have identified the kind of balanced approach that has eluded lawmakers so far. "There's a logic to this," Lieberman says.

At the moment, however, gun rights advocates aren't rushing to embrace McKelvey's approach. His overtures to some of Capitol Hill's most staunch conservatives have been rebuffed. The May issue of the National Rifle Association's magazine features a caricature of McKelvey with the caption, "The New Gun Haters Have Arrived . . . With the Same Old Scheme."

While Americans for Gun Safety has yet to engage in direct electioneering, its critics and allies predict that it may become even more powerful if the changes to campaign finance laws passed by the Senate are enacted. The proposal, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would end the raising of unlimited "soft money" donations to political parties from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. It could give new power to independently funded groups such as McKelvey's, which would not be subject to the new restrictions.

Cowan says the group is still evaluating its political strategy for the next election. Without question, he adds, "McCain-Feingold actually helps groups like us. . . . The right of a democracy is people can organize themselves to effectively advocate for a point of view."

For McCain, McKelvey's willingness to devote millions of dollars to influence lawmakers on issues such as gun control is something to be lauded rather than criticized. "I'm glad a guy with a billion dollars, or two billion dollars, wants to spend his money on an issue he feels strongly about," McCain says.

I think this just shows how effective GWB has been in driving left/liberals crazy. Even the most successful (financially) among them are out of their minds, doing irresponsible things like giving big amounts to silly organizations like MoveOn.

Can we even take Soros at his word? I mean, if it is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH, shouldn't he be willing to throw more than .1 percent of his net worth into the battle? We'll see.

At least he's right about the "life and death" thing.

He's in the "death" camp.

Mike G.

You're making my point for me.

Truth, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Scaife is treated like pond scum in the media and Soros gets the royal treatment. Soros announces that he's raising money to defeat Bush and the media go nuts with joy. That's what is known as media bias.

People like Soros aren't philanthropists, so he expects to get something out of this. I fear he may finance a third party candidate (McCain) who will take votes away from Bush ala Perot and install Hillary in the White House.

Hope to God I'm wrong about this.

What was CFR supposed to accomplish? In a word: nothing. I don't count making people feel good about themselves as something that is the proper function of the government.

This is the same "genius" that dumped a few billion to help Russia form a democracy. All he did was get ripped off by an installed kleptocracy. Seems like he's found a new bottomless pit to dump his lucre.

So campaign finance abuse appears to hurt both sides. Maybe this will convince the RNC to stop undermining Campaign Finance Reform and help give it some real teeth.

Didn't Soros get his money through currency speculation and foreign exchange manipulation? My memory's a bit fuzzy (too many Mai Tai I guess), but wasn't Soros one of the guys who conducted the speculative attack on Southeast Asian currencies that dinged up Thailand and Indonesia so badly a few years ago? And before that, he made a cool billion or so by sucker punching the British and Italian economies.

Well, maybe speculative attacks are useful sticks to keep central bankers on their toes, but the practioners are still scum. He made his money literally off the economic misery of nearly a billion people.

**Of course, $5 million to moveon.org just makes them louder, not necessarily more effective. I mean, you can only make so many "No blood for oil!" and "Bush=Hitler" signs, right?**

Sure, but can you imagine the awesome papier mache puppets they can build?

I'm dizzy with anticipation...

Soros' muddled loyalty and transnationalist views are a prime example of why the US constitution should never amended to allow foreign-born naturalized Americans to become president, no matter their station in life. Hell we have enough wealthy American-born pinheads like Ted Turner to worry over already.

James - it was Nixon who was funded (a lot) by an insurancee guy out of Chicago (his name was Willis Something-or-other, and he actually spoke at MIT when I was there in the early '60s) - Rats, I can't remember his last name - penalties of growing old...

Soros is a major investor in ONVOY communications out of Minnesota. It is ONVOY that has been accused of working with MCI to illegally route traffic to Canada and then dump it on to other carriers' networds.

Well, maybe speculative attacks are useful sticks to keep central bankers on their toes, but the practioners are still scum. He made his money literally off the economic misery of nearly a billion people.
Otherjohnhawkins, you sound like a communist. Soros made his billions by following the Golden Rules of Capitalism: buy low, sell high, and never give a sucker an even break. If other people suffered as a result, well, too bad for them!
As Ayn Rand said somewhere, there is no nobler human effort than amassing enormous wealth.

It's nice how Soros blames Jews for the rise in anti-Semitism here and abroad, too:

http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/3460.stm

I'd wish him dead, but he's probably made out the will to MoveOn already, so there'd be no point.

And, it isn't nice to wish people dead. Tempting, yes. Nice, no.

Excellent essay that explains people like Soros and Tony Judt.

I think I got this from some LGF commenter. Worth spreading around.

I could be wrong but didn't this guy escape from Communist Hungary, and didn't he give 10 million to MoveOn.org, and isn't ANSWER related to MoveOn.org,and isn't ANSWER a bunch of Communists?

I wonder if Soros knows who he's funding these days.

Erp, Scaife managed to work for several years in extreme secrecy, as did the Arkansas Project and various other anti-Clinton ops, before finally the story started to come out (where it was greeted by a great deal of derision as the paranoid fantasizing of Hillaryites) during impeachment. It's ludicrous to compare all of that to Soros getting a good going-over the very day he makes his announcement.

As long as there are estate and inheritance tax levies ("death taxes"), and as long as you can't take it with you, it makes some sense for the mega-rich (almost always self-defined) to spend ("blow") their money rather than give it away to some mainstream or generic charity. Some will buy fame, such as by huge university donations where the university names a building or even a whole school after the donor (did Soros ever try to buy a buisiness school?), while others (Huffington, Corzine, Kohl, Forbes, Perot) will buy themselves a sure-fire place at that table of influence, if the voters are convinced by their message. CFR, in the form of soft-money bans, will fail as long as there exist the twin convergences of "bundling" donations and rolodexes. Bundling individual donations from many donors, and then contributing those donations to one party or to one campaign is bound to make the person / political group "bundling" the donations together famous, even if the candidate / party official cannot remember the names of the individual donors. The "bundler" will have disproportionate influence with the candidate or party, and will get his or her telephone calls returned, or meeting arranged. I'm not sure Soros is the problem, even though he picks the wrong crowd to associate with. As long as politicians, by legislation or oversight, threaten (or promise favors for) businesses, unions, groups, industries, and interest groups, those affected will, in most cases, react by making donations to make the legislation better for them, or to minimize its harm. Thus, Henry Waxman (D) threatens businesses, and gets "rewarded" by people like Soros, and some other congressmen (R) holds out the hope that if the businesses are really concerned about that Waxman proposal, he (R) will blunt or tone down its most negative effects. The cycle of harm and harm ameloriation then repeats itself the next election cycle, as the money tree is shaken by both Democrats and Republicans. If you want to minimize the influence of money on politics, you must first minimize the efffectiveness of politians in affecting business decisions and practices.

Spend it all, George...something about a fool and his money...

Won't them being financed by such a bigtime capitalist completely explode MoveOn's "progressive" - or "populist", "democratic" or whatever moonbat buzzword they care to use - image?

Oh wait, they don't give a rat's ass, as long as it's against Bush. These people have about as much integrity as Lara Flynn Boyle has ass.

I'm sorry ExcitableBoy, I just can't let someone call me a communist and not knock him on his ass for it. That's an insult I won't tolerate (and Sorry Stephen for having the bar fight in your bar).

There is a huge difference between honorable business transactions and parasitic behavior. Do you think John Edwards came by his money honorably? It was legal, and he didn't give any suckers an even break. But trial lawyers like him do damage to the system by exploiting trust and good will. So do currency speculators like Soros.

Capitalism and freedom are noble kin, often found together. Both are beneficial, and both work best when the majority of people voluntarily accept some minimal limits on their behavior in order to function as a society. Note the key words there - "volunarily" and "minimal." The system doesn't work if everyone engages in cut-throat, cheat-em-if-you-can practices, either in Freedom or Capitalism. If everyone practiced Capitalism like Soros does, trust would evaporate and the economy would collapse into a tribal, clan-based mess.

Socialism, Communism, and all that authoritarian crap comes about when enough people feel like trust has so badly broken down (or never existed) that they're better off putting their fate in the strong man who will stop Soros from screwing them.

I don't advocate that - I advocate calling Soros pond scum and making it clear to everyone that his wealth was ill-gotten.

Soros' open society institute has done many genuinely worthwhile things. Anybody into grantwriting on commission? I'd enjoy submitting grant proposals on my work litigating for freedom of political speech on the net. It's the sort of thing he funds, but I haven't gotten a formal proposal together.
His work on decriminalizing medicine was a social good. Most trillionaires make mistakes now and then, and I can see why he wouldn't like Bush.

Looks like it's time to switch from Progressive to Geico.

My, my--it is amusing to see a bunch of freedom-loving conservatives criticize Soros for both being a capitalist (after all tradiing in stocks and currencies are of course unknown among Republicans) and a communist (when he left Hungary to avoid Nazis and communists) at the same time!

If you haven't realized by now let me explain. Sensible moderate centrists like Soros now agree that Bushco is
a) an active threat to peace in the world
b) well on the way to supressing freedom at home
c) leading to econoimc ruin at home.

You lot may not believe that but you're now in a minority. Democrats and Independents (which is was Soros essentially is) are virtually unanimous in that belief and some of the richest have decided that it's important enough to spend their cash to get rid of Bushco.

How it happens we don't care. This is JUST about getting rid of Bush and NOTHING ELSE.

I'm rather shocked to have read 'Sensible moderate centrists' and 'like Soros' in the same sentence and there was no 'not' in there.

Yes. His actions are clearly both sensible & moderate. Just as his views are clearly centrist. *cough* *hack* rofl :-)