Steven A. Rosile, the secretary of the Libertarian Party of Kansas, had a commentary in Friday’s Opinion pages about the money Rep. Todd Tiahrt’s campaign has donated to other groups and candidates, including $4,000 to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. This is money that others donated to Tiahrt. An earlier Eagle news article reported how members of Congress who have healthy war chests and don’t have tough re-election races are expected to share some of their funds with vulnerable candidates. But Rosile asked: “Is this what contributors to Tiahrt’s campaign fund expected their money to be used for?” Rosile’s larger complaint is that federal campaign finance rules are so onerous that third parties are having trouble fielding candidates.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
44 Comments
Hey todd you have something there on your nose. You may want to wipe it off.
K, is it brown?
Campaign finance rules are nothing more than incumbency protection acts. Look at what we lost in the last reform, speech. The most important part of a campaign gone.
I always cringe when someone mentions public financing of elections. That would only guarantee that the head of the DNC/RNC will start to pick who is in Congress and who is the President. Taking power from the people and putting it into the hands of the few.
Ain’t cha proud of how both the demorats and the repukes passed that long awaited campaign finance reform bill? What? It never happened? Figures.
Basic research would show that Tiahrt voted against the campaign finance laws that Rosile and Brownlee rail against. Of course, the Eagle supported every single version of the un-constitutional idea of rationing political speech.Tiahrt was given the money, the law says that he could give it to DeLay if he wanted to. If Tiahrt broke the law, criticize him, if not understand your whining for what it is: sour grapes.
A man enters a bar and orders a drink. The bar has a robot bartender.
The robot serves him a perfectly prepared cocktail, and then asks him,”What’s your IQ?”
The man replies “150″ and the robot proceeds to make conversation aboutglobal warming factors, quantum physics and spirituality, biomimicry,environmental interconnectedness, string theory, nanotechnology, andsexual proclivities.
The customer is very impressed and thinks, “This is really cool.” Hedecides to test the robot. He walks out of the bar, turns around, andcomes back in for another drink. Again, the robot serves him theperfectly prepared drink and asks him, “What’s your IQ?”
The man responds, “About a 100.”
Immediately the robot starts talking, but this time, about football,NASCAR, baseball, supermodels, favorite fast foods, guns, and women’sbody parts.
Really impressed, the man leaves the bar and decides to give the robotOne more test. He heads out and returns, the robot serves him and asks,”What’s your IQ?”
The man replies, “Er, 50, I think.”
And the robot says… real slowly, “So…………… is your partygonna nominate Hillary for president???
“Taking power from the people and putting it into the hands of the few”
Campaign finance reform takes power away from the people? Only a republican would say that!
I thought that was what we had now. A few big money donors running the country. But heaven forbid we should actually CHANGE that!
Please, read “what’s the matter with kansas”.
Why do you middle class people continue to support your big money oppressors? Because you think someday they might “let” you be one of them?
How’s that been workin’ for ya?
“Look at what we lost in the last reform, speech. The most important part of a campaign gone.” One shot
Joeblow says: “the Eagle supported every single version of the un-constitutional idea of rationing political speech.”
I guess I missed the talking points for ditto heads. What the hell “rationing” of speech or “loss” of speech are you talking about? I hear way too MUCH speech and very little action.
and since blowboy is usually a one shot drive by poster, hmmmm…..
have we uncovered a multiple personality here?
ksfarmgrrl
What Joe is talking about is the fact that you and a group of friends and neighbors cannot band together around an issue that you care about and run political ads for/against a given candidate 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days before a general election.
The “news media” can say anything that they want to, you and I cant. McCain is even trying to prevent Bloggers from speaking in that time frame.
Heckler, unless this is a new law:
“you and a group of friends and neighbors cannot band together around an issue that you care about and run political ads for/against a given candidate 30 days prior to a primary or 60 days before a general election”
I guarantee I would be in jail if that were the case. :)
I am not calling you a liar, I honestly dont know what you are talking about. Can you point me to a copy of that law? My PACs routinely advertise.
Are you talking about 527’s like the Swift Boaters? I did hear they were trying to rein in those kind of sleaze groups.
No surprise that McCain, with his newfound republican base balls, would want to limit free speech. I wonder sometimes “where is the real mccain and what have you done with him?”
Heheh. I know bloggers are a pain in the patootie for entrenched politicos used to controlling both the money and the message. You know the ones in both parties.
NO INCUMBENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ksfarmgrrl
I don’t claim to know the law well, but the 527’s were a product of the McCain/Feingold law. They are what I would call an engineered loophole. You have to be a certain kind of organization to run those adds.
As I understand it I couldnt get together with a group of my neighbors and pool money to buy add time to run for/against Todd Tiahrt in November(60 days or less before it). I think we could run an issue add but we couldnt name a candidate.
Groups like the NRA cannot run adds for/against candidates inside the said time frames. That’s why they started their own news organization for webcast and sattelite radio.
Again, I don’t claim to understand it well, but the NRA wouldnt have spent money to start a news organization if they didnt have to.
Heckler, with all due respect, I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but please, see if you can find a link to that law.
It is either newly effective THIS YEAR or it is an urban myth and a meme. I usually keep up on such things, but I have never heard of this.
Maybe it is a FEDERAL campaign law for federal candidates, and does not apply to state or local campaigns. Those are the only campaigns with which I am familiar.
Really, not trying to fight. I just want to read it for myself.
Gee, you would think that with all those connections Tanker Todd has bought he would have gotten his pork barrel tanker project through.
ksfarmgrrl
The Eagle can editorialize on a candidate all they want, they can print colums from all the commentators they want, and have no obligation to be balanced. But you or I as individuals could not buy add space to advocate for/against a particular national candidate inside the time frame.(if we could afford to).
It’s one reason conservatives hate McCain and why many of us were gobsmacked when Bush signed it and the Supremes let it stand.(by a 5-4 decision)
I dont know how this affects state campaigns.
KFG
I’ll try to find it but I’m not sure where to look. I’ve not read it, if it’s as complex as I’ve heard I don’t have the command of legal lexicon to understand it anyway.
Surely someone here knows where to find it.
“But you or I as individuals could not buy add space to advocate for/against a particular national candidate inside the time frame.(if we could afford to).”
Heckler, I swear on the FSM that is not true! I could be wrong though, and that is why I want to see the law. Not saying you are not correct, it just confounds me that I have never heard that.
Again, it could be only regarding federal candidates or a newly enacted law. I really want to see this law in print. What a load of crap if it is true.
Can the WE editors or someone with links weigh in here?
I really want to know about this. Just let them try to shut me up… hee hee.
KFG
http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/legislation/mccain.html
I found this, havent gone through it yet so I don’t know how valid it is.
Thanks heck, I am leaving for the weekend, but I will look at it when I come back. I am not a lawyer either, but this shouldnt be too hard to understand.
Again, thanks for the starting link.
Eagle Editorial Staff
Would it be legal for KFG or myself to buy a full page add with a message that was specifically for/against Todd Tiahrt to run the Sunday before this falls election?(if we could afford to).
The larger subject is fairness in funding campaigns.
On election DAY 2004, there was a continous radio ad for president bush and the Republican party at large. It was on a Wichita radio station I will not plug here.
For that entire day, one national talk show host after another advocated for bush. In the early afternoon, when exit polls showed bush fairing poorly, one host in particular (I’mnot going to plug him either) basically pleaded and wheedled and cajoled and begged people to go to the polls and vote for bush.
There was no similar forum local or nationally broadcast advocating for the OTHER side.There was no media pleading for folks to vote for Kerry and warning that the sky would fall if they did not.
I can hear the calls already. “Market forces!”
“Those shows are heard because people WANT to hear them!!!”
Huey. Bunk. Bullshit.
That media is dominated by the right because the right CONTROLS that market.
We cannot even begin to talk about campaign reform until the Fairness Doctrine is reinstated for radio.
JR
You’re right of course. TO HELL with the first amendment. Fairness is what JR says it is.
JR
Can we get a Fairness Doctrine for newspapers and television as well? You seem to forget that all the big newspapers lean heavy left in their opinion pages. Lets force some balance there.
Heckler,
You can CLAIM a liberal bias in the media.
Didn’t the Eagle endorse bush?
I sure heard alot about the swift boat folks on the “liberal” media.
So your claim doesn’t really hold up.
Show me the balance to talk radio. Don’t tell me about market forces either. The two biggest shills for bush and the right are foisted on most local stations by ONE entity in the form of Clear channel commuications.
Show me a person on 500 stations shilling for Kerry on election day.
Free speech? Please.
If one side can control the media, there is no free speech. It is already bought and paid for.
I guess what you are advocating Heckler is that those with the most MONEY should have the most free speech. That’s real representatively democratic of ya.
The claim that the media is liberal is true.
Yup I just said that.
The fact is that the media (except FOX news and talk radio) is OBJECTIVE. They are LIBERAL not by agenda but only because to the right they are not conservative ENOUGH.
That of course makes them by definition “liberal”
I think JR hits the nail on the head about the ‘liberal’ media. It boils down to perspective. The right doesn’t like the bad publicity bushco is currently getting so there is a liberal bias in the media. However when all of the media outlets couldn’t stop talking about Clinton and his affair with the intern were there any claims of liberal (or conservative) bias, no.
The ‘liberal bias’ that the right perceives, and complains about continuously, in the media is just their (only) way of combating an objective media covering a corrupt and blundering administration.
And for the nut jobs who think this is just another liberal rant then answer this: Why during the 2004 election did the media run fewer negative and more favorable pieces for bush than for Kerry? Liberal bias my ass.
Excuse me folks, but I don’t see the media as Liberal. I see them as asleep at the wheel. Let’s not forget that WaPo and NYT, those bastions of Liberallity, supported the war in Iraq before they were against it. And wasn’t NYT the home of Judith Miller, the bed-hopping witch that reported so many false stories for the Whitehouse? And wasn’t it WaPo that went to such pains to hire an Uber-conservative blogger for “balance” only to find out a few days later they’d hired a plagerizing SOB?
And who is that gaggle of chickenshits we call the Whitehouse Press “Corpse”? Until very reciently, I didn’t see any of them asking any hard questions.
The Right wing has whipped the press into submission.
They media are not “conservative or liberal”, they are kosher and bought and paid for!
V.L.R.B!!
XXX, to you the questions the press core didn’t ask any hard questions. But if you had the intellectual capacity of our presnit you would have found the questions that were asked quite challenging to answer. At least with a straight face.
The McCain-Feingold bill banned ads within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate.
opensecrets.com
Best blogquote of 2006:I honestly dont know what you are talking about.: ksfarmgrrl
No kidding!
JR
Why is it that the Fairness doctrine only applied to radio?
Why shouldnt we apply it to the entire press, newspaper, TV news, internet?
Because you don’t like what you hear on Wichita radio why should I be denied the right to hear it. You love freedom of speach when you like whats being said.
Heckler?
I did ask you to show me an example of ANY media that shills for the left the way talk radio shills for the right. I asked you also to provide an example of someone shilling on the radio for Kerry on election day.
Can’t find any? Then answer “I can’t find any.”
Do the words “fair and balanced” mean anything to you other than that it is almost time for Hannity?
I would not DENY you your talk radio masters. I know you need them to help you write your posts here. (That and to tell you when to fart.)
I want equal time for programs from the other side. You know,,,,for thinking people.
Mr blow?You really are no more than a blogfart in this forum. I’d say keep your anal orations to yourself because frankly I don’t think anyone wants to read them. You might email them top Heckler. I know he is always looking for material
JR
Locally the only lefwing shill I know of is Alan Combes, he’s on pretty early in the morning, I believe 3-5. Nationally there are a few more, locally in some of the larger cities there are more.
I know you hate to hear about market forces being somewhat of a socialist, but if people listen, advertisers pay, just like television. How many right wingers do you hear on TV outside of Fox?
You also think TV news is fair and balanced but your kidding yourself, just one example, look at the treatment of the Plame kerfuffle versus the latest (and first of more to come) CIA leaker.Hard to compare the two.
Heck?
How long do we have to dance together til you find out I’m leading?
You always make my point for me.
Since when do you advocate market forces influencing public opinion and politics? Wouldn’t that sort of be like indirectly buying government? You may not say so or you may not know it but that is what you are advocating.
If one side of opinions is more commercially successful then that should be the only side heard? I hardly call putting one quasi apologist “liberal” on in the wee hours of the morning fair and balanced.Let us imagine the situation was reversed. Let’s say you got to listen to Michael Medved from 3 to 5 AM and the rest of the day was Al Franken, Jim Hightower, Randi Rhodes and Micheal Moore. Would you be comfortable with that?
And as to TV and other media, I defy you to prove that they are liberal and not just not as conservative as you would like.
This is my favorite example. I have used it before. I once saw a story on FOX that bush was up in the polls. Is it fair to call bias when the banner at the bottom of the screen read “BUSH UP IN POLLS!!!” Can you tell share an example of any other media with a headline or screen banner “BUSH DOWN IN POLLS!!!”?
Finally, you cite what to you is an example of bias. But you ignore substance becasue the upshot is an outcome you don’t like. Namely, it’s bad for bush.
Valerie Plame was exposed as a CIA agent by officials high in the administration. The media covered this extensively. Rightly so. Important story to know that high placed government officials were willing to break the law to hurt a political opponent who tried to stand in the way of an unnecessary war. Outcome bad for bush. So I guess we never should have heard that story?CIA agent fired for exposing that our government is operating secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe.Need for the press and public to know about those prisons? I’d say so. I think most would say so. YOUR take would seem be not the importance of the info leaked but the outcome for the leaker. I’m sure you want the leaker prosecuted for treason. Why? Because it was bad for bush.
I’m smelling hypocricy on ya Heckler.
The base of this thread was tanker Todd sharing his campaign money with other more needy GOP candidates.Those with money and power helping their own.
And you are doing everything here Heckler to say that that is fine by you. So long as it works to your interests. So long as “your guys” get to win.
I’d watch out with that line of thinking if I were you. You may have to eat it when things are less to your liking.
JR
“Can you tell share an example of any other media with a headline or screen banner “BUSH DOWN IN POLLS!!!”?
Jesus GOD JR, do you live in a cave? Every time there is a poll showing Bush down in the polls it leads the news cycle for an entire day and then some.!!!
“Since when do you advocate market forces influencing public opinion and politics? Wouldn’t that sort of be like indirectly buying government? You may not say so or you may not know it but that is what you are advocating.”
WTF are you talking about?? Market forces determine what goes on radio, television, etc. If KNSS thought that they could make more money running Air America they would do it in a heart beat.
You have so far refused to answer a key question. Why should the Fairness Doctrine apply only to radio and not to other forms of media? If network news is so fair and balanced it shouldnt be a problem for you. Why not apply it to newspaper opinion pages also? why just radio?
BTW, Heckler, Bush IS DOWN again in the polls.
32 percent approval.
Only five points lower, and he’ll tie Nixon as the least popular president since polls were started.
Heckler
I’d say a fairness doctrine accross the board. All media.
Of course, you’d need to find examples of unfainess as you define it.
bush approval being down is newsworthy. The reporting of it is not bias.
News is not “liberal” if it is not conservatively slanted.
Media is not free if the market is controlled.
Popularity or market forces are not necessarily the mitigating factor.
I cite Clear Channel Communications. (Which does NOT own KNSS) They control a vast section of the radio market. They mandate local stations to air certain programs like Rash Laimbrain and Sean Vanity. They also banned the playing of songs by the very popular Dixie Chicks from their markets because they made a statement about the President that Clear Channel executives did not like. The Dixie Chicks have thus suffered, not because their music is not popular but because it cannot be heard.
Fairness doctrine across the board? Bring it on!
… and did we mention Clear Channel is a dallas based company that is WAY into the soup with bushco?
JR
The problem is who determines what is fair? Some big new government beaurocracy?
JR
Who in the admin. leaked Plames name and what proof do you have of it? Not one reporter has come forward and said that a member of the admin. was who they heard it from first.
JR I just don’t understand you, you challenged me to give an example of someone running a banner saying “Bush down in Polls” and you respond “well that’s newsworthy”. Sometimes I wonder why I argue with you, you make absolutely no sense some days.
ksfarmgrrl
Have you read the McCain/Feingold law yet?
Clear Channel is in business to make money. They too would run Air America if it made them more money.
Rep. Tiahrt is pretty good at bringing home the pork, and not too long ago he even bragged of it. On his Congressional website, you can find a press release from January 23, 2004 titled “Omnibus spending measure contains numerous Tiahrt ‘earmarks’.” It would take me quite a while to total all the amounts listed.
But like a lot of politicians, Rep. Tiahrt speaks one way and acts differently. Other press releases from his office have titles like “Tiahrt co-sponsors measure to cut federal spending,” “Tiahrt Signs Pledge Against Pork in Hurricane Relief Funding,” and “House Passes $40 Billion Deficit Reduction Act,’ which noted that he voted for this bill.
I like fencing with you heckler. I almost hope you can make it to the meet up so I can put a face with the name.
You can’t dance your way out of this one.
The news that bush is down in the polls is news. It is relevant. If you can cite an example (you don’t have to post a link. I didn’t and can’t) of any media posting BUSH DOWN IN POLLS!!! do so.
I have answered your call for a fairness doctrine accross all media. You’ve yet to demonstrate a need for such beyond talk radio.
Should the arbiter be governmental? Or should it be market forces.
The arguement against a govenmental agency would be that govenment should not control the media. To this I agree to a point.
The arguement against market forces would be that the market is not free. I think I made my case to that.Those with money enough can “play” the market.I choose governmental oversight…..a fairness doctrine. The government is in the end us. If we do not like the government controlled media we can vote to change the government and thus the media.
The other option. A market driven media allows no such vote. We hear or see what is profitable to SOME. And they feed us what sells.