Heh, blame the Hollywood Left, the liberal foundations and esp. George Soros! Michael Pugliese >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: 3/28/01 2:51:38 PM > >To: ACU Members and Supporters >From: Christian Josi, Executive Director > >As you know, we've been very busy here at the ACU. We've successfully worked to generate grassroots support for President Bush's Tax Relief Plan, filed complaints with the FEC and the IRS against Jesse Jackson and Rainbow / PUSH, and most recently we've been educating the public and Congress about the very real dangers of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance "Reform" bill, currently in the senate. > >Yesterday, the ACU Foundation released the eye-opening report "Who's Buying Campaign Finance 'Reform'?" Below you will find an article summarizing our findings that appeared today on NewsMax.com. > >Of course, additional information on all of our current projects can be found at our online headquarters, http://www.conservative.org. > >---------------------------------------- > >NewsMax.com >March 28, 2001 > >Rich Leftists Bankroll John McCain's Assault on Freedom >By Steve Farrell > >If you are not yet alarmed and outraged by radical Republican John McCain's "bipartisan" campaign finance "reform" package, which is in no way bipartisan, Monday's revelation from the American Conservative Union Foundation (ACU) should put an end to your complacency. > >In its latest report, "Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform?" the ACU unveils the secret that some conservatives have suspected all along: The campaign finance reform 'movement' has, contrary to its anti-big money agenda, raised and spent more than $73 million since 1996; has, contrary to its bipartisan claims, been funded by "wealthy Democratic Party soft-money donors, ultra-liberal foundations and Democratic operatives; and has, contrary to its equality of donations philosophy, received astronomical donations from a few key individuals and foundations. > >"There's too much money in campaign finance reform," the ACU quips. A few examples of individual contributions: > >George Soros contributed $4.7 million to the "movement for reform"; funneled more than $600,000 to Arizonans for Clean Elections (ACE), single-handedly accounting for more than 71 percent of the group's entire funding; and Soros, and "seven of his wealthiest friends, created their own political committee - the Campaign for a Progressive Future - which funded almost $2 million of political activities in 2000, including $200,000 to the Million Mom PAC." > >Steven T. Kirsch, soft-money "abolitionist," contributed $500,000 in soft money to finance campaign finance "reform" groups in 2000, and $1.8 million in independent expenditures against the candidacy of President George W. Bush last year. > >"Jerome Kohlberg, who spent more than $400,000 of his own money against the campaign of Republican Senator Jim Bunning, R-Ky., in 1998, also donated $100,000 to the Campaign for America." He "subsequently bought television ads pleading 'Let's get the $100,000 checks out of politics.' " > >Or how about some of their liberal foundation donors: > >The Carnegie Foundation - $3,198,300 > >The Ford Foundation - $3,000,000 > >The Joyce Foundation - $3,898,900 > >Florence and John Schuman - $7,511,000 > >Pew Charitable Trusts - $6,726,000 > >Not a convincing argument, then, for opposition to big donors buying unequal political influence. Further, the report reveals that Mr. McCain has personally received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these same wealthy donors. > >If the money is coming from the left, chances are the left will benefit. It's fairly simple: When one considers the proposed ban against all political advertising 60 days prior to an election, who, at that critical juncture, will control the hearts and minds of Americans going into Election Day, other than the leftist press? > >But a soft-money ban easily translates into another problem: the drying up of public advertising efforts (perhaps educational endeavors too) of conservative issue groups, whose work is critical to balancing the debate against the media, the public school system and the government's own ability to lobby on behalf of itself. Again, advantage to the left and advantage to the media. > >Rush Limbaugh insightfully dubbed McCain's bill "The Media Empowerment Act." That it is. > >The ACU reports: > >"Since 1996 Joyce has made grants in its "Money & Politics" category totaling more than $13 million to finance every conceivable campaign finance reform endeavor anyone can think of, including financing specific projects to insure that the media is properly 'trained' on the issue of campaign finance reform - to the tune of $1.16 million. > >"Taxpayer-supported National Public Radio has received $212,141 from the Joyce Foundation since 1996 for 'coverage of finance, government ethics and political influence issues.' > >"... When viewed in the context of the other recipients of Joyce Foundation largesse at the same time, a substantially leftist political agenda emerges to which the campaign finance reform movement is >inextricably tied. > >"Beginning in 1996, the Joyce Foundation actually established a separate category under its Money & Politics grants entitled 'News/Media Grants.' " > >According to the report, here is what the Joyce Foundation has funded: > >* $41,500 for the production of four video segments on campaign financing to be aired on "Washington Week in Review" > >* $342,000 to investigative reporters and editors for an online Campaign Finance Information Center > >* Another $200,000 to investigative reporters and editors to increase and improve news media coverage of campaign finance issues > >* $30,000 for a Mother Jones magazine investigative report into campaign finance practices of the 1995 House freshmen > >* $100,000 to the Alliance for Better Campaigns, whose goal is to require free television airtime for candidates > >* $30,000 to the Tides Foundation for 'news reports on campaign finance issues broadcast semi-monthly over the Monitor Radio network' > > * $200,000 for the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation for a 'training initiative to help television, radio and print journalists provide better news coverage of the influence of private money on electoral, legislative and regulatory processes....' " > >Is the picture clear? Ban free speech, buy molders of opinion. > >And if that doesn't work, these "reformers" have many other dirty tricks that totally disregard the Bill of Rights and reverence for the United States Constitution. > >In 1994, after a previous attempt at campaign finance reform failed to win approval in Congress, these "reformers" attempted an end run around the Constitution by having President Clinton order the same, by bureaucrat fiat. As a result, the Federal Election Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register outlining various new policy options, including most radically the outright prohibition of "soft money" on the local, state and national levels. > >The attempt failed, but it revealed, once again, the true ideological bent of these "reformers" and their disdain for protecting the political influence of the common man. > >Needless to say, when left wing-funded reformers stand up for the little man - even while they court the rich man and spit on the very Constitution that protects the poor man - we have the right and duty to question just where is the "bipartisan," and where is the "reform," in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. > >--------------------------------------- >*Do you know a good conservative who would like to receive the ACU-INFONET Updates? If so, why not forward the attached message to them and encourage them to sign up at http://www.conservative.org > >*If you wish to unsubscribe to the ACU-INFONET please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and type 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. >
