Buying Campaign Finance Reform

Ryan Sager of the NY Post peeks behind the curtain of campaign finance reform:

CAMPAIGN-FINANCE reform has been an immense scam perpetrated on the American people by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a "mass movement."

But don't take my word for it. One of the chief scammers, Sean Treglia, a former program officer of the Pew Charitable Trusts, confesses it all in an astonishing videotape I obtained earlier this week.

Lots of reaction at Memeorandum.

Now, the "true confessions" aspect is interesting, but the underlying story is not new.  The American Conservative Union released a report in 2001 titled "Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform".  In it, they name many of the same names as Sager, among both donors and advocacy groups.

And the 2001 report was not ignored - we see it linked by PBS, and by the Campaign Reform Information Center.

Well.  How open a secret was this funding for reform as the bill was debated and passed?  Did the opponents of McCain-Feingold emphasize it?  Did the media ignore it? 

If anyone has some killer links (or Shameless Self-Promotion), I would welcome some research help.

MORE:  This looks like the George Will piece mentioned in the Sager column although I am puzzled by the timing - it seems to have been written after the bill was passed, in a judicial review phase, which is not how it seems to be described in the Sager column.

Here is some quick history from Open Secrets.

UPDATE:  A double play from the Monk:  this George Will column cites the ACU study noted above, *and* precedes the signing of McCain-Feingold.  That makes it a strong nominee.

Comments

[creepy irish dude]

Please tell me why Bush signed it again?

[Appalled Moderate]

Because he did not want a McCain primary challenge in 2004.

[MattJ]

Josh Marshall is all over this story.

He hatest that astroturfing stuff, you know.

[Harry Arthur]

I'm getting worried, may be getting ready to agree with CID on something. I think Bush made a MAJOR mistake signing campaign finance for whatever reason. The most recent election, IMHO provides all the reasons for why this was a bad law that should have been vetoed. This is one where Bush and I disagree totally. 100% immediate publication on the internet is the way to open campaign finance to the light of day, not unconstitutional restrictions on political speech from which the press is immune.

[The Monk]

I think that this is the George Will column referenced in Sager's piece. Here is the relevant excerpt:

If you doubt that reformers advocate reform because they believe that acting ``objectively'' means coming to conclusions shared by The New York Times, read ``Who's Buying Campaign Finance Reform?'' written by attorney Cleta Mitchell and published by the American Conservative Union Foundation. It reveals that since 1996, liberal foundations and soft money donors have contributed (BEG ITAL)$73 million to the campaign for campaign finance reform. For example, George Soros, founder of drug legalization efforts and other liberal causes, has contributed $4.7 million, including more than $600,000 to Arizonans for Clean Elections--more than 71 percent of the funding of ACE.

Soros and seven other wealthy people founded and funded the Campaign for a Progressive Future. One of those people, Steven Kirsch, contributed $500,000 to campaign ``reform'' groups in 2000--and $1.8 million against George W. Bush. Another reformer, Jerome Kohlberg, donated $100,000 to a group that ran ads saying ``Let's get the $100,000 checks out of politics.''

Will wrote that column in late March 2001, long before Pres. Bush signed the execrable McCain-Feingold Act.

But kudos to Harry Reid (yes, I said that) for proposing to exempt Internet communications from the McCain Feingold farce.

[TM]

OK, good job by the Monk.