I think I found a giant hole in campaign finance law

[rpgamerd00d]

I am a member of my town's Democratic Town Committee (DTC). I helped our last candidate run for 1st Selectman (its basically like Mayor). During that campaign, the DTC was able to donate any amount of money to the candidate they wanted, with no limits. I then asked if there was a limit on donations to the DTC. The answer was "No."

So, it seems, at least at the local town level, that you can donate *any amount* of money you want to the Democratic Party, and in turn the Democratic Party can donate *any amount* of money to a candidate.

I assume this is true at the federal level. If not, then forget this entire post.

But if so, then its pretty clear that this is a huge loophole in the system. Of course, the party is always free to use the donations for someone else or something else, but a little "nudge nudge, wink wink" between the donor and the party, and I'm sure the money will make it to the "right" place.

We should make this an issue, and campaign finance in general a huge issue, in the face of the 06 Rovian smear campaign. Its the ultimate retort to any wedge issue the Repukes bring up, because its a very real and serious problem.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Not a correct assumption at all

Federal laws only apply to races that operate at a federal level: President, Vice President, and Congress-critter (Representative or Senator.) They do not apply to state or local races, which are governed by state and/or local laws.

[theboss]

2. That's the difference between "hard" and "soft" money

The amounts you can donate to individual candidates are limited; the amounts you can give to parties, PACs, and other organizations is unlimited. That's been the case for a long time.

(On edit, the first reply made a good point. I'm not sure what you mean by "donate to." The Democratic Party couldn't donate, say, $100 million to John Kerry in '04. They could, however, spend that money to ostensibly support him. The whole thing is really just a big game).

[rpgamerd00d]

3. Ahh, ok, that makes sense. Always wondered what hard vs soft meant.

Thanks.

Get rid of Soft Money!

Dems like it HARD!

:rofl:

[FSogol]

4. Can you un-recommend a thread?

Just kidding. I'm sure there are hundreds of loopholes, however.

[Clovis Sangrail]

5. campaign finance "laws" are a joke

Even after the "reform act".
Any contribution over a couple grand is corruption, plain and simple.

We should scream for real campaign finance reform.
Make EVERYTHING entirely govt funded and allow contributions in any amount to a completely anonymous, generic fund that gets used for all candidates.

Our government shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder, but until we stop the insanity of "political contributions" that will remain the case.

[blindpig]

6. Don't think that would work.

I think many people would be reluctant to donate to a fund that might benefit the "enemy". What might work is forcing the media to pony up air time and column inches to be equally distributed to the candidates. As they are making a fortune on the public airwaves and bandwidth their complaints could be blown off as unpatriotic.

You're right though, what we got now is crap.