Much of the debate over the so-called “Crominbus” (a combination Continuing Resolution and Omnibus spending bill), which the House passed late last night, surrounds the last-minute insertion of a campaign finance provision that would raise the limits on individuals donating to political parties. The provision would gut the main portion of the McCain-Feingold law that is still standing after Supreme Court review: the ban on “soft money.” Political parties used to raise unlimited amounts of “soft money,” in return giving their wealthy donors access to legislators. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law largely put an end to this practice, and the Court upheld the provision
Comments
“I’m not sure why anyone would assume that his fellow Republicans would be influenced in the slightest by his views on the topic.”
I’m unsure if that’s the point. If he — as he did on the torture report — went on the floor and provided a strong statement of his views, this wouldn’t mean the Republicans (and some Democrats) would have a road to Damascus moment. It would continue — like Elizabeth Warren’s efforts (and certain Republicans in respect to their causes) have — to highlight the importance of his views all the same.
Views a large segment, including many Republicans who vote for people like McConnell for other reasons, agree with. These issues don’t lead to wins with one piece of legislation. It is a continual concern and when stuff like this is “rammed thru” via a budget bill, it should be made clear by some truth-tellers just what is happening.
He has his moments doing that. Insider or not. This provided another chance on one of his key concerns.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 13, 2014 11:54:05 AM
I assume that John McCain still thinks the legislation that bears his name is a good idea. I’m not sure why anyone would assume that his fellow Republicans would be influenced in the slightest by his views on the topic.
Posted by: Adam | Dec 12, 2014 2:55:35 PM
“Or has he become just another Washington insider?”
He has. Meanwhile, Rick Hasen adds more, including:
“Neither of these provisions were the subject of hearings or deliberation. Both were snuck into a massive bill through the back door at the behest of the powerful.”
http://electionlawblog.org/?p=69099
This, not a law that was drawn out for around a year (ACA), is what “ramming down your throat” legislation means.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 12, 2014 11:32:58 AM