Republican Party Plans Suit To Overturn McCain Law

WASHINGTON — The national Republican Party wants to make it easier to raise and spend political money and plans to sue the Federal Election Commission to alter a six-year-old law written by John McCain, the defeated Republican presidential candidate.

Republican National Committee Chairman Robert M. "Mike" Duncan said Wednesday that he wants the courts to eliminate restrictions on coordinated spending by national parties and federal candidates and to permit the national organizations to raise money for state parties.

Duncan said he planned to file suits Thursday in federal courts in Washington D.C. and in Louisiana. His goal, he said was to "strengthen the Republican Party and bring a more level playing field to campaign finance."

The lawsuits represent the most direct party challenge to post-Watergate restrictions on the ability of parties and candidates to work hand-in-hand on political campaigns and on the anti-soft money law that McCain championed in 2002. Both laws have been upheld by the Supreme Court, but since then the court has a new Chief Justice in John G. Roberts and a new justice in Samuel Alito.

"This effort to go to the Supreme Court appears to be based on the idea that we have different justices so the prior decisions should just be thrown out, and that is just dead wrong," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a campaign money watchdog group.

Since the 1970s, parties have been limited in the amount of money they can spend in coordination with a House, Senate or presidential candidate. For instance, this year, the RNC and its counterpart, the Democratic National Committee, could only spend $19 million each in consultation with the McCain or the Barack Obama campaigns.

For the past decade, national party committees have set up independent expenditure units that can spend money on behalf of candidates as long as they have no contact with each other. The RNC spent more than $50 million against Obama through its independent operation.

"That results in these expenditure units being given money without direction, without coordination," Duncan said. "You get results where candidates are often upset with the message that is going out."

The RNC's effort to permit fundraising for state parties and state candidates would reverse a key component of the 2002 law that McCain helped write with Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and House members Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D-Mass.

Under that law, the national parties can only raise money under federal fundraising restrictions. The law banned the national parties from raising so-called soft-money _ that is, unlimited amounts of money from corporations, unions or individuals. If the national parties can raise money for state parties or for state candidates, they would adjust that fundraising to state limits, some of which are far more lenient than federal law.

Duncan said he wants the RNC chairman to be able to raise money next year, for example, for governors' races in Virginia and New Jersey. Duncan was spelling out his lawsuit plans Wednesday night to governors attending the Republican Governor's Association meeting in Miami.

He said such greater fundraising freedom also would strengthen the party's hand for congressional redistricting efforts. The party money could be used to help elect state officials who have a hand in making redistricting decisions and to finance litigation challenging any new district lines.

Comments

[Tom Joad]

I propose a new name for the party:

Republican'ts or Republiban (Rep-publi-can + Tal-i-ban)

[PuppaX]

Ouch...tha­t's some serious salt-rubbing.

[FarOutFish]

McCain was “Hoist to his own Petard” screwed by his own McCain-Finegold Campaign Finance rules. Poetic justice can be sweet. Anyone with an IQ higher than one realize it is impossible for lawyers to write laws that other Lawyers can’t poke loopholes through. Loopholes are directly proportional to the number of rules governing any practice. In the case of campaign finance the best solution seems to be, “You can take as much money from anybody you want to, you just have to tell everybody.­” A simple rule that is devoid of room for loopholes. We have the best politicians that money can buy, at least this way we know who paid for who.

[Forester]

Just like Newt said - there is nothing wrong with the GOP message, it is just not being clearly presented. They just need more money for more dishonest TV ads. Back to the old tricks with more money.

[L double E]

sounds great, as long as there is a tax on whatever funds are spent, and a tax on the funds not spent. This way the tax revenues can go towards candidates who opt for public funds. I wonder how much of the bailout money given to all those financial institutions is ending up in republican campaign coffers. and maybe they should amend part of campaign fincance laws so that any company and its employees receiving any federal money (either as bailout or bid contracts) cannot make campaign contributions to parties or individuals.

[Icantbelieveher]

They need more $$$ to be able to spread the lies to more people!

[fedupwiththis]

Why is it always about money with these clowns? The RNC needs some realistic ideas more than it needs more money and it needs money pretty badly.

[judiNJ]

Help, help! I live in New Jersey and to think they will come swarming in
with GOP money makes me cringe. I want to keep NJ BLUE!

[whiteboyblues]

I always thought it would be a great idea for politicians to run in a "Mouth Off" for charity during non-election season. They go around trash talking each other and supporters pour money into their campaign for a charity. Sound good?

[Marlyn]

More of the same from the right wing.

[JamesInDenver]

If politicians spent as much time running the country, as they spend finagling campaign finance laws, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[novowel4me]

I wonder if the Republicans will spend some energy on repealing early voting and the same day register and vote laws. The Demos need to be vigilant.

[Kryten]

It's really not early voting that we need-- but MAIL-IN voting. My county is 100% mail-in, and voting is a breeze. We sit back with voter's pamphlet and ballot in hand, go through each selection, discuss, and mark our ballots with no stress, time pressure, waiting or inconvenience. If you don't want to spend 42 cents, or just don't trust the postman, you can drop it off in person.
Those without addresses could pick up a ballot when/where they register or at certain county offices by verifying their identity.

This is the solution, I suspect...

[concernvoter]

Republicans get over the nightmare.

[timberdoodle]

It simply hasn't sunk into the Republican Party how and why they lost and lost so big. They seem to be under the impression they can keep their same policies and prejudices and be a viable choice in today's world.

Fear and division have gone by the wayside with more and more younger people recognizing the harm these tactics do to everyone. The next generation is being heard by everyone but the GOP.

[proudem]

Since when were the Repubs concerned with a level playing field? They have never played fair and used everything from voter disenfranchisement to outright lies to achieve their goals. This is why they lost. They are crooks and schemers and (for now) they have been defeated. They are the Darth Vaders of the political arena.

[Grunty1]

Simple: when they are behind.

The GOP is the "Do as I say, not as I do" Party.

[Dystopic]

Bush had a team of 12 lawyers fromn Houston ready to throw out the electoral college if he had one the popular vote but lost the electoral vote.

The constitution is a document that the rethugs are at war with, if they could rescind the entire document, they would. And then brag "What a victory for America"