The “BCRA of 2002″ – Threatens the will of the people!


On January 1, 2003, the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA)” became law and established new legal limits for financing of political campaigns. Here is what that law said:

[From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

  • The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA) is U.S. Congressional legislation which regulates the financing of political campaigns. It is also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, after its chief sponsors, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). The law became effective on 6 November, 2002, the new legal limits became effective on 1 January, 2003.
    As noted in a Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, it was designed to address three issues:

    • The increased role of soft money in campaign financing,
    • The proliferation of issue ads, and
    • What were regarded as disturbing campaign practices during the federal elections of 1996, including (to some degree) the Presidential race.

    Here are the provisions of that law:
    Major provisions:

    • A **wholesale prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to **national political parties,–unlimited donations nominally made for non-campaign purposes, but potentially used to influence federal elections.
    • A **prohibition on soft money contributions and expenditure to state and local political parties, **with a few limited exceptions, such as unlimited contributions to **political action committees.
    • Federal candidates and officeholders **
      prohibited from accepting or spending soft money
    • A **ban on supposedly non-partisan “issue ads” funded by soft money from **corporations and labor unions – those referring to candidates for federal election without expressly advocating their election or defeat — in the **60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary election.
    • **Disclosure of sources of finance for “electioneering communications” in excess of $10,000 per year.
    • A political party spending money in a general election campaign must **choose between making coordinated expenditures on behalf of its candidate, or independent expenditures on behalf of its candidate, but not both. (Ruled unconstitutional in McConnell v. FEC, but later upheld by the Supreme Court)
    • Minors are prohibited from making contributions to candidates and political parties. (Ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court)
    • Hard money legal limits raised:
      • Limit for individual contributions per candidate per election **increased, from $1,000 to $2,000.
      • Limit for individual contributions to National Party Committees increased from $20,000 to $25,000 per year.
      • Limit for individual contributions to state and local party committees increased from $5,000 to $10,000

    Other provisions (incomplete):

    • Fund raising on federal property is prohibited.

The law was intended to control the amount of money contributed by special interests groups that promote the election or defeat of a candidate to ensure passage of legislation which they favor because it serves their “special interests.” **The problem with this practice is often times the special interests groups support legislation that does not benefit the public good or the wishes of the American public.
These special interests groups are called a **political action committee, or PAC.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC):

As a tax-free corporation under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, NRDC is subject to limits on the amount of money it can disburse for the purposes of lobbying Congress. But it has found a way around such restrictions by establishing a separate lobbying arm, the NRDC Action Fund.
Operating under a different section of the tax code, section 501(c)(4), the Action Fund is exempt from similar restrictions. Under the banner of “environmental action”, NRDC lodges lawsuits to impede the construction of everything from highways and hydroelectric dams to nuclear power plants. The NRDC Action Fund complements this work, launching advertising campaigns to arouse grassroots support

Everyday we are bombarded by these PAC’s. Because of the loophole in the campaign finance law, a monster has been created. **This law creates the very situation is was intended to prevent.

George Soros and those other very rich people who use their money to manipulate our political system to their own advantage pushed for this legislation’s passage. They knew this loophole would exist. What I want to know is **why our Congress didn’t see this consequence would result when the new law was passed. I find it hard to believe that none of our elected officials could see that **the new Campaign Finance law effectively created a system of “no over sight” of campaign funding for political candidates!

As we progress into this new Presidential Campaign, groups like the Shadow Party and one of its PAC’s,, which was set up by Soros, Ickes, and Hillary Clinton, have already amassed millions of dollars. Our airways are beginning to be flooded by political adds. The mud slinging is not confined to a battle between the parties either. As I observe the political activities, I see several major events of crucial impact on our nation’s future. The Clinton – Obama race is an excellent example of intra-party dynamics of this type!

On the surface we have the consummate Democratic versus Republican campaign being waged. Within the Democratic Party there is a struggle to regain control of the party from the stranglehold of the latest **Progressive [politically correct for socialist/communist] effort to retain their hold on that party through their control of funds held by the PAC’s! Through the successful development of front PAC’s and their organizational efforts, these people have the Democratic Party well under their thumbs. Trying to follow a PAC back to its originating source is an effort in true dedication and determination.

PAC’s for ANSWER, UFPJ and other such groups at the local and national level form a network that looks like a spider web. Hillary Clinton’s PAC supporters and those PAC’s formed by her are amazingly complex. Often only a board member connection by a single individual points to her and her campaign.

There is, however, one means of following the “trail.” **All of these PAC’s and the other “supposed” special interest non-profit groups have to file a report to the IRS. The IRS updates this publicly available information several times a month.

The third group beneath the surface is made up of those very rich proponents of the new “globalist’s movement.” These people are pushing very hard for the “American Union.” They abhor national identity. I’m still doing some research on this group. However, George Soros, the Clintons, the older President Bush are among their ranks. This group is another group with international aspirations!

The final group in all of this is our troops and the War in Iraq. Again our troops are being used as pawns on a chessboard of political and personal agenda. The best way to win a game is to develop a strategy that makes your opponent look in another direction while you make your intended move. While all of these groups above distract us over the War in Iraq, they are each making their moves to achieve their own agendas.

However, our troops are the unexpected player in this game. Our troops are not drafted troops. They aren’t young men given a choice of jail or military service. They aren’t young men with doctored high school diplomas. They aren’t young men with doctored qualifications to meet a war time recruiting effort like during Vietnam. Mind you, I don’t mean to imply all our young men who served then fell into one of these categories.

But, the bottom line is no one can dispute the common knowledge that an all volunteer military is much more professional than a drafted military. All our men and women who serve now are there by choice. While they might prefer not to have their tours extended, they still perform their duty with pride and professionalism. On the average they are more educated than the average none military American. In our Guard and Reserve Units are men and women with college degrees who work in every professional level when not actively serving.

Our full time components in the military are equally educated and work in highly skilled and professional jobs. Like Vietnam, these troops refuse to stand by and not speak out about what is being done to them. They refuse to allow the public to again be deceived about the real war effort. Behind them are over thirty years of Vietnam Veterans who got the royal shaft is every aspect from their country. These veterans have worked together and now work with our present veterans to prevent another deception of the American public.

They are making their voice be heard and they are demanding accountability from our government and our politicians. They are making sure that those high level military officials who have sold out their military standards of service to America for their own ambition are exposed. They are making sure those incompetent leaders and soldiers who do not meet the true standards that our troops live by are held accountable. They are also telling the public what our media and politicians won’t, the truth about the war!

Were our politicians and leaders as determined to live by and meet such high standards and self monitor themselves in such a manner, the American people would see a government, especially a Congress, that lived up to the standards set forth by our founding fathers. The sad truth of the matter is our troops have rediscovered those ideals while our Congress and elected officials have traded them away for political or monetary gain, or goals of personal power.

Isn’t it about time that the every day American citizen became more aware of events that affect our nation? Isn’t it about time we started holding our elected officials accountable? As this Presidential election day draws closer, we need to start becoming more involved in our own affairs of government. If our officials can’t or won’t do their job, then we vote them out of office. I am starting with my own Senator, John Warner.

I am no longer supporting him for re-election. I have always supported him in the past. But his decisions of late do not reflect the kind of representation I am accustomed to seeing him provide. I called his office and told them I will no longer support him because of his latest position on the war effort. I also signed a petition to the Republican National Committee advising them I will not contribute to them unless they can guarantee no funds will go towards his re-election. What will you do?

[** – my emphasis]

~ by devildog6771 on March 9, 2007.


One Response to “The “BCRA of 2002″ – Threatens the will of the people!”

  1. Between the research I have done and what I’ve read in your excellent posts, I’ve learned so much about the inner workings of both parties. I’m so amazed when talking to people how much they do not know about their government. Or the organizations they are supporting.
    Well, you know how I feel about the HillSitters – I’m with ya!
    What’s really sad is so many of them who were involved in stopping the Vietnam War for all the wrong reasons are still holding seats…


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: