Down With Bill Clinton

By Robert A. Hahn Posted in | | | | Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Here is another in my series of good ideas we should steal from liberals. This one has to do with McCain-Feingold. Or rather, the lack of it. According to the Associated Press...

A liberal advocacy group plans to spend $8.5 million in a drive to ensure that President Bush's public approval doesn't improve as his days in the White House come to an end.

At first glance this sounds like a dumb idea. But maybe it's not. Maybe it's a McCain-Feingold idea. George Bush is not a candidate for any federal office. This means that "Americans United for Change" can spend infinite money trashing him, and they don't even have to report their donors to the FEC. What's more, there is inevitably going to be a certain, erm, latitude concerning what constitutes criticism of Bush and what constitutes criticism of Republican policies in general.

Which reminds me. (And frankly, it ought to remind T. Boone Pickens as well). In spite of the way former President Clinton is comporting himself, Bill Clinton is not a candidate for any federal office.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

CALLING ALL FREDHEADS! by girljulieta

Go to [LOOK AT ME I'M A SPAMMER]

for President in 2008

Good post by David123

I like the last two sentences.

Hrm? by Moe Lane

.....Ah.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Your signature wiped out a whole lot of transparency.

HTML Help for Red Staters

This is brilliant by Right Again

We don't have to campaign against the Clinton who is running. The other candidate makes a pretty big target himself.

As long as the attacks took care not to involve Hillary, it appears they would be perfectly legitimate.

Where do we sign up? Who is going to spearhead it? (I nominate Nick Danger). And to whom do we write our checks?

Sticky gooey mud by Robert A. Hahn
    As long as the attacks took care not to involve Hillary, it appears they would be perfectly legitimate.

It's better than just 'legitimate.' In this culture, any attack on a female can backfire, or be made to backfire. Hillary has played to this effect brilliantly. But one can dump on Bill all day long and never trigger the sympathy response, even though half the mud may well stick to her.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

to this post.

But presumably, I could donate an unlimited, undisclosed amount of money to such a 527.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

if it was attacking a citizen who was not running for office?

It would be a 527 by Brad Smith

A 501(c)(4) organization could do it, too, or even a for profit corporation, if you wanted to pay taxes on donations. All "527" means is a section of the tax code under which groups organize for political activity - "McCain for President" is a 527; the Republican National Committee is a 527, "Bob Jones for County Commissioner" is a 527, Acme Corporate PAC is a 527; the Orange County Republican Party is a 527.

This is why Senator McCain makes no sense when he says he wants all groups to "play under the same rules." There is no one set of rules now. Rather, there are different rules that apply to each of state and local candidate committees, to presidential campaign committees, to national party committees, to state party committees, to corporate PACs. They are all 527s. Then there are different rules that apply to 501(c) organizations, such as the Sierra Club or the NRA. There are different rules that apply to corporations themselves, and to unions, and to trade association PACs. And there is yet another set of rules that apply to 527s that avoid explcitly advocating the election or defeat of candidates, such as this "Americans United for Change."

Sometimes these many sets of rules overlap, and sometimes they don't, and politicians and partisans try to adjust them to penalize their political opponents. All of this began long before McCain-Feingold - McCain-Feingold just made it all a whole lot more complex and a lot more restrictive of speech.
Brad Smith
Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
Capital University website
Center for Competitive Politics website

Thanks, Brad.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Thanks for the answer by Right Again

I am still slightly unclear. I assume the benefit to funding this through a 527 is the tax-free status. But it sounds like 527s are for political organizations. It seems that what Mr. Hahn is proposing is that we attack citizen (non-candidate) Bill Clinton. Would it need to be one of the other organizations you describe since it would not be political. And are any of the other organizations similarly tax free?

Additionally, are donations to any of these organizations tax deductible (since it would not be a political contribution)?

1) whether the organization has to pay taxes on its income
and
2) whether contributions to the organization are tax deductible

Any organization that conducts political activity loses #2. That's why churches have to be so careful about participating in political activity and why organizations like NAACP have to pretend to be non-partisan. A for-profit entity loses both #1 and #2.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Again, the question is... by Right Again

does this constitute political activity? We would be attacking a non-candidate. Granted he is an ex-politician and the attacks would be purely politically motivated, but does that mean the activity would be considered political? It is still subject to the regulations of McCain/Feingold? Would it be regulated by the Federal Election Commission?

No other candidates' spouse has made themselves as big a part of a campaign as Bill has done. He tries to make himself the story in most of his appearances. I love the idea of campaigning against him non-politically while our candidate campaigns against Hillary politically. The two-fer would be magnificent.

But if you didn't try to make contributions to your group tax deductible, you could avoid all the trouble of getting hauled into court by the IRS.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Only then will the time be ripe to remind the public of the Clinton Legacy.

HTML Help for Red Staters

giving to such a 527....oh please.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I would wholeheartedly endorse this idea if the following two things weren't also true:

1) I think it might be even better to let obviously bought-off groups stand alone for a while, to shine a spotlight on them.

2) The Republican Party can't seem to reach any kind of agreement (although it is inching closer) to who they are really going to support in this election after the Primary battles are over.

3) A lot of the Republican base (myself included) are actually very financially strapped right now and have no money to contribute to attacking Bill Clinton.

If a few wealthy Republicans want to get together and bankroll such a plan to run counter-negative ads in this campaign, by all means. But I'm about 1 week from having my electricity shut off (and that's no joke) and I'm not in the mood to concentrate on anything involving side issues and attacking Bill Clinton.

Well... by Jack Savage

Now is no time to be going "green", kowalski.

Sorry - thought maybe a little levity would help.

I'll help build the website. Will work for hire. No joke. I just can't contribute right now, but I think it's a fine effort.

Oh BTW by kowalski

Thanks to National Grid I won't have to go "green" of my own recognizance: Massachusetts already has the 7th highest electricity prices of any state in the nation and Deval Patrick has already said that we don't need any new power plants. So I'm not going to *decide* to do it, I'm going to be *forced* to do it.

If an independent group is formed to sling mud at Bill Clinton all day, every day, then what do our nominees have to do with it?

As for #3, well, I'm in the same situation, but not all of us are trying to launch businesses, heh.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Very, very nice idea by Jack Savage

I'm in. How about the first commercial going something like:

"It's time to end the seedy, unseemly, trailer park politics of the past. Time for someone to be faithful... to the ideas that made this country great, and time for us to do more than just bake cookies and stand by, hoping. We can't let the country go backwards to the soap opera of the 90's, where instead of "Camelot is the address" it was "That's a spot on your dress".
It's time to send Bill Clinton back home - wherever the hell that may be."

Hardcore leftists never disappoint.

If they want to throw away 8.5 MILLION DOLLARS (me doing the Dr. Evil pinkie finger to the mouth move), then more power to them.

That is just less money that will go into the coffers of the crazies they bankroll at election time. Guess since Denny K got out of the race they didn't have another conspiracy nut to support.

What this article showed me - once and for all, in crystal clarity - is just how instilled with bitterness the 'progressives' in this country have become.

Unable to defeat President Bush at the ballot box and unable to force a military defeat for the United States in Iraq in order to hurt the president politically, they are showing everyone just how childish they can be.

Seriously, just how bad can you hate someone? Pundits have called this BDS (BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME) and some therapists referred to it as PEST (POST ELECTION STRESS TRAUMA) stemming from John Kerry's defeat by Bush in the 2004 Election.

I think it goes much deeper with these people and that they have some personal, subconscious vendetta that blinds them to reason. To call it 'mental illness' might be close, but that would be an insult to people who have real mental problems and are in hospitals getting treatment.

These Bush haters are just grownups who never grew up and take everything as a personal grudge. I'm just grateful they are on the side of Democrats and Liberals and not on ours. Their actions only remind the American voters who they are and who they represent.

It is sad to watch, but more pathetic than sad.

Still, the entertainment value should be invaluable.

Deranged by Whitehorse

Definitely! It's a waste, but hey, they can waste their money. If I were a union member & saw my dues going to this kind of monkeypoop I would be one unhappy camper.

As henious as Bill Clinton is, I think our money & efforts are better spent toward the future. Bill is doing a great job hacking off the "black" voting bloc right now by exposing the soft underbelly of racism inherent in the statist mindset. They will spin Obama's SC win as a black v. white issue, which is something that I hope our candidate exploits. May make some "black" voters think twice about following the overseers to vote democrat.

What if, after (& assuming) the Clinton machine chews up Obama, there is a third party candidate who is African-American?

Unlimited money paying for billions of nasty lies and half truths about Bush. But it's not personal at Bush - it's an attempt at guilt by association to make all Republicans look bad cause they're Republicans like that "Evil Bush". And it's a really sneaky sinister way to use gobs of money to attack republicans and get around McCain-Feingold restrictions.

I was real depressed when I read the original post - and then I read and re-read the last two sentences. The saying, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comes to mind - and in this case, people who live in glass houses shouldn't do weird things with cigars either. :-)

great idea by dingo

This does sound like a great idea.

let's attack him on his legacy. Let's define his legacy.

This will bring out the red-faced, finger-wagging Bill.

Let's attack the fact that he did so little to stop Osama bin Laden. Attack the fact that he threw a few missles at tents where he used to be to deflect from the Lewinsky fiasco. Attack the bubble economy that he oversaw which led to the recession in 2001. Attack the cuts to the military that led Islamic terrorists to believe we had no army or will with which to fight. Attack his run and hide approach to Somalia. Attack his unwillingness to listen to Richard Clarke. Attack his misuse of the Lincoln bedroom. Attack him for his lousy appointees: Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Jocelyn Elders, Madeliene Albright, Al Gore. Attack him with his fellow Democrat's words about the embarrassment he has brought to their party and our country.

If you want to see Bill really mad, attack and define his legacy.

"The Wall" by Spartan4Life

I believe it is actually quite a bit more sinister. I thinkthere has been far too little exposure of what was going on in the first Clinton administration that may have more directly than indirectly led to the 9/11 attacks.

Everyone here I am sure rembers the Jamie Gorelick memo erecting a wall between the investigative and intelligence divisions of the FBI and between the FBI and CIA. Gorelick was the defacto Attorney General at the time.

Why was the wall important to Bill Clinton? Because Louis Freeh and the FBI were closing in on him with respect to illegal foriegn contributions. I seem to remember that there were complaints by investigators that a case could not be put forward because it would have required bringing together information from the various agencies that were specifically prohibited by Gorelick's memo.

As we painfully learned on 9/11, not sharing information across agencies was a bad idea. So, did Bill Clinton's erecting of a wall to protect his seamy existence lead to 9/11? Not exactly. But, then again, we'll never know if it could have been prevented, either.

on the papers Sandy Berger stole. I guess he's not running for elective office now either.

For the locals: this blog got linked to by the Jan 25 opinionjournal.com Best of the Web column today (sorry, can't link to it permanently until it's archived). Congrats to Robert Hahn, who gets my vote for best writer on Redstate, bar none.

---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.

Thanks by Robert A. Hahn

Hey, thanks for the tip.

And the compliment :)

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

... for them to spend $8.5 million trashing Bush, shouldn't it also be legal for us to spend however much money we want trashing Bill Clinton? That could be especially effective if Hillary is the nominee, no?

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

The advantage a 501c4 has over a 527 is that contributions don't have to be disclosed. Also, you can accept unlimited corporate contributions. Donations aren't tax-deductible, though.

Electioneering is prohibited, but this wouldn't be electioneering -- or rather, if AUC's attack ads are considered non-campaign related, then such an effort should be as well.


blog advertising is good for you



blog advertising is good for you


 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password? new user?)


Image

image

Get RedState by E-mail



Delivered by FeedBurner

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service