I really don’t understand why there hasn’t been more attention paid to this, from little Scott McClellan:
We’ve called on Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity.
What exactly does this mean? Should all expenditures be “regulated?” Regulated how? Should my friends and I not be able to throw some dollars together and buy ads?
I mean, I’m a tepid supporter of various Campaign Finance Reform endeavors, but I didn’t realize that president had such extreme views. Or does he? Can someone pin him down?
The quote isn’t out of context– I’ve got the whole exchange under the fold. McClellan repeatedly says that the President calls for an end to all unregulated soft money activity. Surely he can’t mean that?
McClellan also says “the President thought he got rid of all of this unregulated soft money activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law.” Incredibly, he seems to be making the argument that Bush doesn’t understand the laws he signs. Even I know that campaign finance reform did nothing of the sort.
But let’s take McClellan seriously for a second. Are we supposed to believe that Bush thought he was signing away the right of Americans to engage in “unregulated soft money activity”? I mean, we Timberites pay money for our bandwidth. We engage in political speech. And we’re completely unregulated.
Did Bush think that he was outlawing this?
Here’s the exchange:
Q There’s a new ad by MoveOn.org that talks about — that criticizes Bush’s record in the National Guard. What’s your response to that, and what do you say to Harkin, who called Cheney a coward for not serving?
MR. McCLELLAN: We have been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative political attacks from these shadowy groups that are funded by unregulated soft money. And the President has condemned all of the ads and activity going on by these shadowy groups. We’ve called on Senator Kerry to join us and call for an end to all of this unregulated soft money activity. And so we continue to call on him to join us in condemning all these ads and calling for an end to all of this activity.
Q What about Senator Harkin, who called the Vice President a coward?
MR. McCLELLAN: That’s just more negative political attacks by the Kerry campaign and the supporters of the Kerry campaign.
Q But, Scott, the MoveOn.org ad, back to that. Senator Kerry denounced the ad specifically, saying it’s not indicative of their — the way they feel about the Bush service in the National Guard. He specifically denounced the ad, which is something that they’re saying the Bush-Cheney campaign has not specifically done about the Swift Boats ad.
MR. McCLELLAN: Let’s be clear here. What the senator did was, he said one thing at the same time his campaign was doing another. His campaign went out there and essentially promoted this false negative attack at the same time Senator Kerry was saying he condemned it. The President has condemned all of this kind of activity, and he should join us in doing the same and calling for an end to all of it. Apparently he was against soft money before he was for it. And the President thought he got rid of all of this unregulated soft money activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. And so it’s another example of — the senator’s latest comments are another example of him saying one thing and doing another.
{ 10 comments }
Kieran Healy 08.19.04 at 10:56 pm
And we’re completely unregulated.
No, the invisible hand regulates us all in its infinite invisible wisdom.
Rob 08.19.04 at 11:27 pm
Seriously? McClellan will say that both campaigns should try to stop 527s. Other types that just happen to favor Republicans would be fine.
clark 08.20.04 at 12:44 am
Calling for an end to it is not the same as forcing an end to it. However I think the view is that if Kerry attacked groups like MoveOn.Com and Bush attacked groups like the SwiftBoatVetrans that then there would only be the main political parties having ads and major advocacy groups. In that way there would be more accountability to the political debate.
The way things are now any small group can make charges and the opposition can blame the main candidate for the charges, whether deserved or not. Further it typically seems that these other groups offer the most heated and extreme charges.
One certainly can accept all that and call for their silence while simultaneously believing that they have the *right* to speak and that the *government* shouldn’t keep them from speaking. More that those with similar philosophies should *persuade* them to be nicer or be quiet.
The way things are going the whole campaign finance reform (which *was* an infringement on free speech – just infringements allowed by the Supreme Court) is a bit moot as there are too many loopholes. Further the loopholes may make for a worse situation than we had 4 years ago.
Stu 08.20.04 at 2:49 am
I think what McClellan and the Bush administration are saying in response to this is even more odious than what the Swift Boat Vets are saying. Kerry is essentially saying, “MoveOn.org is not part of my campaign, they do not speak to me, and I disagree with what they are saying.” Fair enough, I don’t disagree with them, and I like Kerry, we can all have our disagreements and be friends in the morning.
But the White House is responding to these things not by condemning the content of their statement, but by saying they don’t have the RIGHT to buy ads so other people can hear what they want to say. I think the Bush administration would be just as happy if no one but them, and perhaps the official Kerry campaign, were allowed to say anything whatsoever about politics.
As I said, odious.
Robin Green 08.20.04 at 2:53 am
Further it typically seems that these other groups offer the most heated and extreme charges.
I don’t see MoveOn as extremist. Only John “Don’t lets rock the boat too much!” Kerry could make them look “extremist”.
Al Maviva 08.20.04 at 3:05 am
It is axiomatic among civil libertarians that the only effective remedy for speech you don’t like is more free speech.
Campaign finance reform as an attempt to somehow “purify” politics and remove the pernicious influence of money, is a fools errand, as the 527s of both parties prove.
Merkin 08.20.04 at 10:53 am
But let’s take McClellan seriously for a second.
Why?
Brett Bellmore 08.20.04 at 11:05 am
What’s complicated about it? Bush DID sign the BCRA. After expressing his opinion that it was unconstitutional.
Just take him at his word: He’s NOT a civil libertarian. If he can see an advantage to himself in violating First amendment rights, he’ll do it.
Chance the Gardener 08.20.04 at 3:41 pm
I don’t see MoveOn as extremist. Only John “Don’t lets rock the boat too much!†Kerry could make them look “extremistâ€.
Kerry likely doesn’t either. He is merely utilizing a conveniently timed ad to put the onus back on the Bush administration to condemn the swift boat ads. It is a kind of ‘Look, I condemned my side, lets see you condemn yours.’ Childish, but childish obviously works in elections.
It is a play, not a real protest.
Nicolas Bray 08.20.04 at 6:59 pm
Apparently he was against soft money before he was for it.
My God, he did not just say that.
And so it’s another example of — the senator’s latest comments are another example of him saying one thing and doing another.
You really have to admire the logic of this: Kerry supported the BCRA which didn’t ban 527s and now he doesn’t want to ban 527s, so therefore he’s a flip-flopper.
Bush, on the other hand, didn’t support the BCRA and now thinks it should be made even stronger. Presumably this shows steadfast leadership or something.
Comments on this entry are closed.