The Media Fund .org NOT a Soft money PAC????


Master Blaster
April 5, 2004, 02:13 PM
I guess I just dont understand the election finance reform that Bush signed.

If you look at this web site, it is a blatant ANTI-Bush Pro-democratic candidate John Kerry organization, dedicated to getting Bush out of office in 2004.

I have seen 4 of their commercials which are unabashed anti Bush and Pro Kerry ads. I would call thenm viciuos attack ads.

I looked at the FEC filings and the IRS filings which they provide links to on their web site.

Steve Bing of Hollywood Ca. donated $4.6 million dollars in one shot to the compaign per their FEC filing.

They list on the disbursement forms list attack ads against Bush especially the one about Bush sending jobs to China.
The form only lists one candidate in the candidate box and that is George W. Bush. It appears that they are listing him as the benificiary of their anti Bush attack ad?????????


How the he77 do they get away with taking $4.6 million from one donor and then use the money to attack one candidate Bush and promote another Kerry??????

Isn't this exactly the kind of crapolla that the Campaign finance reform was supposed to fix?????

What Gives??????:what:

If you enjoyed reading about "The Media Fund .org NOT a Soft money PAC????" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
Harry Tuttle
April 5, 2004, 02:27 PM
Soros just wants an NRA free "level" campaign field so he can dontate millions
to and get his candidate elected

thats all

Posted on Tue, Mar. 09, 2004

Millions for ads called illegal


By Liz Sidoti and Sharon Theimer

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A Democratic-leaning group financed in part by billionaire George Soros plans to run $4.5 million worth of TV ads in 17 presidential battleground states, beginning Wednesday, that criticize President Bush's policies and priorities.

Bush's re-election campaign, which already has begun its own $10 million initial ad blitz, branded the group's activity illegal and said it would seek a Federal Election Commission investigation.

The Media Fund is the second outside group to go on the air in two weeks to counter Bush's multimillion-dollar ad campaign and ensure a Democratic presence on the airwaves. The liberal voter fund also is running ads in swing states.

The Media Fund bought at least $1 million worth of airtime Monday and expects to buy more this week for its initial two-week ad run. The group expects to raise tens of millions of dollars to run ads this election year. The first ads mention Bush by name, a point of contention among GOP lawyers who argue that violates federal law.

Republicans and campaign finance watchdog groups have questioned the legality of such groups, which have emerged as ``shadow parties'' and are nicknamed ``527s'' for the section of the tax code under which they file.

Bush, who is expected to spend a large part of his $100 million-plus campaign war chest on ads, started running commercials Thursday highlighting his leadership.

The Bush-Cheney campaign said it would file a complaint with the FEC accusing the Media Fund of violating a broad, new ban on the use of ``soft money'' -- corporate, union and unlimited contributions -- for federal election activity.

April 5, 2004, 03:11 PM
If our politicians are passing laws that screw THEMSELVES over (while trouncing on our 1st amendment rights) why in the would should we beleive that they'll put time and energy into make sure their laws make any sense ever?

Their entire lives (it seems) centers around getting election money and back into office. There's holes like swiss cheese in this law and now the REPUBLICIANS are crying foul? Those jerkoffs made the darned thing and Bush signed it. Eat dirt. Now you know how we pesants feel.

April 5, 2004, 03:53 PM
The Media Fund and Move On are IRS 527 designated groups and what they are doing is apparently illegal. However, the Federal Election Commission is not acting against them apparently because some of the commissioners are Democrats.

And, sueing them in court will take a long time unless the courts create a fast path.

As far as I know, the Republicans do not have anything like these high powered 527 organizations.

April 5, 2004, 07:16 PM
The GOP does have 527s set up, but right now they're more like contingency plans.

As far as fund raising goes, the Dems seriously shot themselves in the foot with the "soft money" ban. The GOP, especially GWB, has a huge hard-money advantage. When "soft money" was allowed, the Dems and the GOP were about even as far as money went.

Now, Dem-allied groups are using these 527s to tap big-money donors like Soros. The irony is, money going to the 527s is even less controlled and less accountable than the old soft money.

Brett Bellmore
April 5, 2004, 10:18 PM
Nothing complicated about it. During Jim Crow, everyone kniew the gun control laws applied only to blacks, not whites. (See, I just made this post gun relevant! :D ) Today, everyone understands that campaign finance laws only apply to Republicans, (And ESPECIALLY third parties.) not to Democrats.

The Democrats were already preparing to violate the new law before they'd even gotten it passed. They never had the slightest intention of abiding by it. And here's where the real chutzpah comes in: The fact that they're violating it will be the excuse for the next round of campaign finance laws they won't be obeying. :banghead:

April 5, 2004, 10:39 PM
OK, so now I am depressed. :confused:

And angry. :cuss:

Why does one party always get worked over by the other party?

Master Blaster
April 6, 2004, 08:48 AM
Honest Moral People always have a hard time getting down in the gutter with the filth.

Thats why the Demoncraps seem to always get over on the Republicans.

Ever since Watergate the Republicans have been afraid to roll up their sleeves and hold their noses.:barf:

The Demos also have the Big money special interest Media on their side.

Last night I was watching the NBC news (bad for blood pressure) they had a political expert on their from some independent think tank, and he was crittiquing the Media fund ads. He said that they were big time distortions, but stopped short of calling them outright total lies (they are). He also said that thie was not in keeping with the spirit of campaign finance reform.

April 6, 2004, 08:54 AM
FEC commissioners of both parties have shown themselves to be diligent, fair-minded, and non-partisan, I'm glad to say.

527s, as the Dems are using them, especially Theresa Kerry with her Tides Foundation, and Soros with his many operations, are a flagrant violation of the intent of CFR, though of course the intent was itself idiotic enough. What the Repubs did was set up some of their own, but without making them operational they went to the FEC and "innocently" asked whether it would be legal to do such-and-such with them (such-and-such being exactly what the Dems are doing). The FEC appears to be dubious abut the legality of such use, and a ruling is pending.

It's my hope, based on what I've seen of the behavior of both Dem and Repub members of the FEC, that this scam will be shut down firmly.

Black Dragon
April 6, 2004, 10:58 AM
Can someone explain just how Bush is "sending" jobs over to China?

I work for one of the "Big 3" automotive companies. It all comes down to
profit. I work with Purchasing every day and they talk about sending work
to China or India or Mexico because of the cost savings. Once there is a
quality hiccup on the quality, your savings goes out the window.

Purchasing was given a mandate from Upper management that Purchasing
had to cut cost by about $1 Billon dollars this year. Purchasings answer......
Send to the business to "Low Cost Regions" of the world. Then I have to
jump through the hoops to make it happen. If, for some reason, its doesn't
happen then I get the blame.

There is nothing that Bush is doing to sending jobs to China or India or
Mexico as I can see it. It is all down to the company wanting to Max the
profit. How is that done, by paying person "X" $3.00 per hour vs paying
person "A" $12.95 per hour, then add the benefits on top of that.

Master Blaster
April 6, 2004, 11:10 AM
Kerry's friends are exspecially bold on the China thing, given that he voted for most favored nation status for China under the last regime Clintoon.
And despite the fact that many repubs voted against it due to China not honoring human rights agreements.

April 6, 2004, 11:39 AM
Hey Master Blaster, are you an EOD type guy?

April 6, 2004, 12:43 PM
Black Dragon, you forgot to add the costs that come with doing business in the US, on top of benefits-liability insurance, environmental compliance, workers' comp, taxes, etc. I read somewhere that those types of costs increase the cost per unit of labor by something like 22%.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Media Fund .org NOT a Soft money PAC????" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!