The CRomnibus that Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) help to pass? It's the Repub version of "We have to pass it to see what's in it" - Part 1 - Granite Grok

The CRomnibus that Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) help to pass? It’s the Repub version of “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” – Part 1

Pile-Of-MoneyAh yes – I bet that Kelly Ayotte didn’t read it either.  For you see, for ALL of her campaigning against Illegal Alien Amnesty, she turncoated on that promise when she arrived in DC.  Notice that since the Illegal Alien Kid Invasion this summer, she’s gone REAL silent.  And with her vote supporting the CRomnibus (with little to nothing said about fighting Obama’s unconstitutional Executive Order in which Obama assumed the Legislative Branch’s Constitutional role – HER role), she has now officially reneged on that campaign promise – there is no other explanation that she supports that Amnesty – else she would have fought with Senators Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and others.  But I digress and will cover this later.

There’s a lot in this craptastical bill – 1,600 pages that I bet NONE of our high cost CongressCritters read.  Yes, the GOP Leadership decided that merely passing the bill was more important WHAT they were passing.  And they decided that giving a HUGE gimme to both political Parties – and this snippet from this piece from the Washington Post piece (psst – there’s bit of a Gruberism in it – from a Republican) (reformatted, emphasis mine):

A massive expansion of party fundraising slipped into a congressional budget deal this week would fundamentally alter how money flows into political campaigns, providing parties with new muscle to try to wrest power back from independent groups.

Yeah, we certainly can’t let OTHER people horn in on our money, can we?  It isn’t even about the money – it is about the CONTROL and who has it.

The provision — one of the most significant changes to the campaign finance system since the landmark McCain-Feingold measure — was written behind closed doors with no public debate. Instead, it surfaced at the last minute in the final pages of a 1,603-page spending bill, which Congress is rushing to pass to keep government operations from shutting down.  Under the language in the bill, a couple could give as much as $3.1 million to a party’s various national committees in one election cycle — more than triple the current limit.

Now, I have no problem with people exercising their Free Speech rights in giving as much money as they want to those that support their beliefs on the issues.  None.  And unlike many, given what we have seen the last few years when “full disclosure” turns into outright retribution (e.g., physically harming people and private property, ruining peoples’ lives, et al), I don’t think we need that disclosure.  EVERYTHING, including disclosure, has been weaponized in this hyper-partisan political atmosphere so take away that weapon from BOTH sides.  But I digress – this is not my main point.

The move was heralded by party supporters, who said it would replenish the official Democratic and Republican organizations, which were left weakened by a 2002 ban on soft money and the subsequent rise of super PACs and other outside groups.

Well, ya did it to yourselves, didn’t you?  Your elected partisans passed that law – and NOW you’ve been whining about the “unintended consequences” for years.  The answer is not to limit it (or in this case, make SURE that you legally shift power away from “the people” to the political Party Elites), but to drop restrictions, period.

“A lot of us would like to get the parties back in the game,” said Richard Hohlt, a Republican lobbyist and veteran fundraiser. “This language would strengthen the parties and provides some transparency and oversight over an uncontrollable, Wild West fundraising atmosphere.”

ONLY IN YOUR EYES, you overbearing, self-important snot.  The “uncontrollable” is politico-speak for “we had it in not being able to control it.  After all, we know better than you how your money should be spent”.  That’s Gruber for “you’re too stupid to spend your own money.”  Nice to see the Republicans are right there with the Democrat Grubers of the world.  And yes, having now seen the Republicans, who blabber they are for limited Government, less spending, and lower taxes pass this crapital CRomnibus with the Democrats INSTEAD OF STANDING up for what they say they believe in, how can they are different than the Democrats?

And here is the proof:

The impetus for the measure appears to have been driven by the Republican National Committee, which has aggressively sought ways to shake off its fundraising limitations. The Democratic National Committee was also closely consulted, said GOP congressional aides familiar with the negotiations….A spokeswoman for the RNC declined to comment, noting that the bill had not yet passed.

Yup, take it away from others – this is duly noted as Crony Politicalism.  Why?

Democratic leaders in the House warned they may try to block passage of the spending bill unless there are changes to the fundraising language and other provisions.

Yeah, more blather – any of you hear anything about the Dems complaining?  Naw, didn’t think so.  And its main purpose, only:

<snip>

“It will thus help recalibrate the balance away from secret contributions and from unaccountable super PACs and toward open contributions to the parties,” Herman said.

You can absolutely forget about words “open contributions” between “toward…to the parties” – they are spurious.  This is a feature, not a bug.

But critics said the measure would drastically expand how much money the parties could raise without any public debate about the merits of such a policy change.

And that last part is the WORST part – this is why huge bills like this should be illegal (yeah, like that would EVER become law).  THIS is what I fear most – a willingness by our politicans to engage in such behavior – far far worse than the money part.  And seeing that the GOP started it, it’s just yet another reason why people keep saying there’s not a dime difference between the Parties.

Dime?  What am I saying? They BOTH want that extra $3.1 mill!

>