Subject:  $$$$$$ in U.S. politics......
Date:     Thu, 25 Mar 1999 085633 -0600 (CST)
From:     "Roy L. Beavers" <rbeavers@llion.org>
To:       emfguru <rbeavers@llion.org>
--------------------------------------------------


.....More money!!  More money!!  More money!!  American politicians
need more money......  Can you believe this???!!!  See below.....
(There is a glimmer of "light" at the end, when the author mentions
the McCain-Feingold Bill.....)


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org................
...It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness... 
.................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS...............

     _________________________________________________________________
   
     _________________________________________________________________
   
02:41 AM ET 03/25/99

Panel: Ease Campaign Fund Limits

 By DARLENE SUPERVILLE=
 Associated Press Writer=
           WASHINGTON (AP) _ Campaign contribution limits that haven't been
 changed since they were imposed in 1974 contribute to public
 cynicism toward government, a retired Republican senator said in
 urging a Senate panel to ease the limits.
           Former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., said the limits are
 ``antiquated'' and must be raised to account for inflation. They
 remain at $1,000 for donations from individuals and $5,000 for
 contributions from political action committees.
           Coats said Wednesday that the constant hunt for money takes
 lawmakers away from the job of governing, which reduces public
 confidence in elected officials.
           Increasing the limits, he argued, would free lawmakers to focus
 on issues and legislation since they would be able to raise money
 from fewer sources.
           Demaris Miller, a Republican who lost a bid to unseat Rep. Jim
 Moran, D-Va., told the panel that she favors eliminating limits on
 contributions from individuals, or at least increasing them to the
 level imposed on political action committees.
           She said existing limits put challengers at a disadvantage.
           ``I believe the 1974 law is an example of good intentions gone
 bad,'' she said before describing her difficulties raising money
 and getting her message out to voters. ``I was seriously
 constrained by this 25-year-old ... fund-raising limit.''
           But the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Christopher Dodd of
 Connecticut, expressed skepticism about assertions that lawmakers
 would willingly limit their fund-raising should contribution limits
 be increased.
           ``I view the problem as too much money in the system, not too
 little,'' Dodd said.
           He also said higher limits could increase cynicism among those
 who can't afford to donate large sums. ``I'm deeply worried about
 that,'' Dodd said. ``We've got to be careful that they don't feel
 further disenfranchised.''
           Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., however, noted that even President
 Clinton, among other officials, has said the limits should be
 increased.
           Last year, the House passed a major campaign finance bill that
 would have banned ``soft money'' _ unlimited and unregulated
 donations to political parties. The bill, reintroduced by Reps.
 Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and Marty Meehan, D-Mass., also would
 have limited issue advertising and expanded disclosure
 requirements.
           A similar measure supported by a majority of the Senate failed
 to reach a final vote in that chamber last year and also has been
 reintroduced by its sponsors, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and
 Russell Feingold, D-Wis.




Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.feb.se/EMF-L/EMF-L.html