The seventh question of Monday night's debate between Wisconsin's U.S. Senate candidates Russ Feingold and Ron Johnson created the most sparks.
Here's video. The exchange begins at 46:30.
Transcript
GLEN MOBERG, MODERATOR: According to critics, the U.S Supreme Court Citizens United decision has opened the floodgates to unlimited amounts of cash being spent on negative campaign advertising by rich special interests which under the decision don't even have to reveal their identities. How dangerous do you think this development is for democracy? Will this decision allow foreign governments or even terrorist groups to secretly fund campaign ads? Should we work to overturn the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court decision? So, if so, how, and what, if anything, should we do to keep big money from anonymous sources from influencing election outcomes?
Sen. Feingold, you have 90 seconds, and then Mr. Johnson.
RUSS FEINGOLD: It's easily one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. It says that every one of you is in the same position as corporations. Corporations have the same political rights as you do.
And the results of this are being seen in this election. There are millions of dollars being spent by out-of-state groups in ads against me and I have not seen any ads on my behalf, and I don't want any ads like that. They are hidden. You don't know who's actually paying for them. There may well be foreign money involved. It is the destruction of our political process, and the founders of this country did not believe that corporations were the same as the rest of us. We can pass legislation and try to require some disclosure of this information which, of course, I've supported in a bill called the Disclose Act.
But fundamentally, we do need to overturn it. We're going to have to get one justice who realizes that this decision was completely wrong. Otherwise, our democracy is going to be completely submerged by the very powerful corporate interests that already dominate Washington. It's only going to get worse.
MOBERG: And Mr. Johnson, you've got 90 seconds.
RON JOHNSON: I think campaign finance reform should be pretty simple. I would be for total transparency and immediate, or at least very rapid, reporting on the Internet. We have the capability of doing that. That's what we need.
We don't need to assault our individual rights to free speech. That's really I believe what the McCain-Feingold, I call it the Incumbent Protection Act, because that's what it did. The intention of that thing was to supposedly clean up campaign finance, to make things more accountable. What it's done it's pushed money outside the political process. It's pushed money into these 527 groups like MoveOn.org where there is no accountability, there is no transparency. We have no idea who's funding these ads.
Now certainly, I don't like outside group ads. I don't like attack ads. I particularly don't like them now that I'm in the process and they're being used against me.
So, my solution is pretty simple: Let's do away with McCain-Feingold. Let's make this very simple. Let's have total transparency and immediate - slash - rapid disclosure on the Internet. Then we know who is supporting each candidate and we know it right away. And we can bring campaign finance back into the system where it's far more accountable than what it is today.
MOBERG: And the follow-up: According to analysts, campaign money spent by outside groups this year is helping Republicans instead of Democrats by a wide margin. Why is that? Democrats say corporate interests are trying to weaken the new Wall Street regulations and preserve tax breaks that encourage companies to send jobs overseas. Republicans say the spending is a reflection of deep dissatisfaction on the part of the American people with the policies of the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress and the U.S. Senate.
And we're into a free-form discussion.
FEINGOLD: Well, I tell ya, Mr. Johnson just refused to answer the question about Citizens United and I'll tell ya why - because he already endorsed it. He's all for it. He is benefiting tremendously in his campaign from millions of dollars of these ads and I am not. And I don't want them. You say you don't want them? Will you call on them to stop?
JOHNSON: I have no control over that.
FEINGOLD: Well, you ask them to stop?
JOHNSON: That's part of the problem. You have no control over the process.
FEINGOLD: Will you ask them to stop?
JOHNSON:That's their right to free speech.
FEINGOLD: Will you ask them to stop? That's your right to free speech to say to them, 'stop.'
JOHNSON: People have a right to free speech, Sen. Feingold.
FEINGOLD: Will you ask them to stop?
JOHNSON: People have a right to free speech.
FEINGOLD: The answer is no. So, here we are in Wisconsin; we're here in Wisconsin and we want to have our own election and a guy who wants to be our U.S. senator will not simply use his free speech to say 'will you please stop?' That's how you should use your free speech.
JOHNSON: To answer your question, I agree with the people saying the reason there's more money being spent on the Republican side is there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with what's happened over the last 18 months, two years. People are concerned. People are very concerned about the total out of control spending and debt. They're concerned, and that's why they're putting their money where their concern is. That is their right and they should have that freedom.
FEINGOLD: The oil companies, the insurance companies, the mining companies -- they are all very concerned. And they are hiding behind these ads because we finally are going to get some control over them. He's hiding behind ads that are nasty attack ads from out-of-state and he refuses to call on them to stop. That is a direct attack on Wisconsin's political tradition of home-based campaigns.
JOHNSON: Sen. Feingold, it is individuals that are concerned about what's happened to their country and they have a right to send their money into a particular group that agrees with their position, and those groups have a right to run ads. That's their freedom and I'm not going to take that freedom away. You seem to want to do that. That's what some of the thrust of McCain-Feingold would be. You want to be able to select who can have free speech and who doesn't want to have free speech.
FEINGOLD: I want everybody to have free speech but I want them to be able to, as you just said, they ought to disclose. You haven't even called on these people to disclose. You just said you're for disclosure. You won't even call on them to disclose.
JOHNSON: I'd be happy to have them disclose.
FEINGOLD: Well then why don't you ask them to do it?
JOHNSON: Disclose.
(Audience cheers.)
FEINGOLD: Good. Let's see. Let's see. Frankly, frankly I'm pretty sure you know darn well who's doing this.
Feingold's whining that Johnson is "hiding behind ads that are nasty attack ads from out-of-state and he refuses to call on them to stop" is laughable.
Feingold's assertion, "That is a direct attack on Wisconsin's political tradition of home-based campaigns," is hilarious.
HOME-BASED CAMPAIGNS?
Let's take a look at how the two campaigns measure up in that regard.
The Federal Election Commission provides the finance information for the candidates.
Examine Russ Feingold's financial summary.
Examine Ron Johnson's financial summary.
Let's look at the itemized individual contributions. Contributions from individuals must be itemized when the total from the donor exceeds $200 in any calendar year.
How much of the money came from out-of-state?
Remember Feingold stated that Johnson's campaign was a "direct attack on Wisconsin's political tradition of home-based campaigns."
Russ, what was that about "home-based campaigns"?
With the itemized donations, we do know the source of the money. Feingold receives dramatically more out-of-state donations from individuals than Johnson. The difference is enormous.
Feingold's complaining is completely unwarranted.
In addition to the money he's raised from these individual out-of-state donors, he's received millions and millions from MoveOn.org and the shadowy George Soros and unions.
But there's ol' Russ whining about out-of-state money while he's raking it in and benefiting from it.
Regarding free speech--
Feingold brags about supporting the Disclose Act.
The Disclose Act is an abomination. It's a politically calculated assault on free speech by Democrat incumbents like Feingold.
The National Right to Life Committee has expressed its strong opposition to the Disclose Act.
Enactment of the DISCLOSE Act would not be a curb on corruption, but itself a type of corruption – a corruption of the lawmaking power, by which incumbent lawmakers employ the threat of criminal sanctions, among other deterrents, to reduce the amount of private speech regarding the actions of the lawmakers themselves.
NRLC believes there can be "no constitutional justification for the carve-out distinction."
Apparently, Feingold and the Democrats don't care.
The NRLC concludes:
This legislation has been carefully crafted to maximize short-term political benefits for the dominant faction of one political party, while running roughshod over the First Amendment protections for political speech that have been clearly and forcefully articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a series of landmark First Amendment rulings, culminating in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007) and Citizens United. And, the authors of the bill know this full well. Yet, they hope to ram this legislation into law – including a specific provision making it effective 30 days after enactment, without any interpretative regulations from the FEC – in order to set up legal minefields that they hope will, for at least a year or more, deter disfavored organizations from effectively communicating with the public about the public policy agenda of the current Administration and of the dominant faction of the majority party of the current Congress.
We strongly urge you to oppose this pernicious, unprincipled, and unconstitutional legislation. In our scorecard and advocacy materials, the legislation will be accurately characterized as a blatant political attack on the First Amendment rights of NRLC, our state affiliates, and our members and donors.
There you have the Disclose Act, a disgrace that Feingold supports.
When our freedoms are at risk, we have to pay attention. This is serious, serious stuff.
Ron Johnson will stand up for our rights.
Feingold is attacking our freedom. He's not concerned about us. He's concerned with protecting his political future.
I think Feingold's hypocrisy has finally caught up with him. He's finally being held accountable by challenger Ron Johnson and the people of Wisconsin.
FEINGOLD: So, here we are in Wisconsin; we're here in Wisconsin and we want to have our own election and a guy who wants to be our U.S. senator will not simply use his free speech to say 'will you please stop?' That's how you should use your free speech.
Russ, will you use your free speech to tell George Soros and your Hollywood buddies that we want to have our own election in Wisconsin?
Please tell them to butt out. That's how you should use your free speech.
Listening yet?
No comments:
Post a Comment