Introduced by Rep. Chris Ward (R) on March 6, 2007, to revise the state campaign finance disclosure law to require non-profit "527" organizations to follow the same disclosure rules as a PACs, and prohibit them from making a campaign contribution or an independent expenditure for an "electioneering communication;" ban corporate, union, and Indian tribe contributions for independent expenditures on an "electioneering communication;" make the exchange of corporate, union, or Indian tribe money in return for a campaign contribution a felony; ban "soft money" contributions or expenditures by a union or corporation for an "electioneering communication;" and limit the amount a person can give a political party to $50,000. “Electioneering communication” would be defined as a communication that clearly identifies a candidate made 30 days before a primary and 60 before a general election. Passed in the House (56 to 50) on September 13, 2006, to revise the state campaign finance disclosure law to require non-profit "527" organizations to follow the same disclosure rules as a PACs; and require these disclosures (including amount spent and who contributed the money) for “electioneering communications,” defined as ones that clearly identify a candidate or ballot issue, and that are made 30 days before a primary and 60 before a general election.
Referred to the House Ethics and Elections Committee on March 6, 2007.
1) Eliminate, don't escalate by Mike Hignite on March 8, 2007 This bill is void on its face as a violation of the first amendment. You should not be supporting the restriction of free speech.
Campaign "finance reform" is a direct violation of the right to free speech. It regulates and controls political contributions that are used to communicate ideas about candidates and issues. What is a more basic first amendment right than that? Who cares whether or not Bill Gates gives $92 billion dollars to help elect Bozo the Clown? Only if you buy into the idea that citizens are complete idiots who only vote based on advertising dollars. Only if you buy into the idea that politicians are absolutely bought and paid for by the highest bidder.
Anyone, anywhere ought to be able to contribute to any campaign in any amount. Any effort to register, restrict, record, regulate this activity is on its face void. Reply
2) Campagin Finance by yorkark on March 8, 2007 If you are going to restrict 527's then you better take a look at the kind of uncontrolled campaign financing is being done by those with PAC's which include unrestricts for the most part except Union Pac's. Reply
3) 2007 House Bill 4415 (Expand campaign finance regulations ) by admin on January 1, 2001 Introduced in the House on March 6, 2007