Why I Gave

From The Washington Post, 12/5/03:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html

Why I Gave

By George Soros

Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31

I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of
dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in the 2004 presidential
election.

We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush
administration is taking the United States and the world.

If Americans reject the president's policies at the polls, we can
write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume our
rightful place in the world.

If we endorse those policies, we shall have to live with the hostility
of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence.

In this effort, I have committed $10 million to America Coming
Together, a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million
to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that
is airing advertisements to highlight the administration's misdeeds.

This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by
conservative groups.

Rather than a debate on the issues, there's been a lot of name-calling
by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National
Rifle Association.

In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other
donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I
have somehow broken the law.

In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit
of the law.

Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are "527"
organizations -- referring to Section 527 of the tax code -- which are
entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals.

Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities.

Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the
influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and
to level the playing field between the two parties.

My contributions are made in that spirit.

President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured
out a clever way to raise money.

He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece
in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal
limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect
at least $200,000.

Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are
well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle
them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure
proper "credit."

They are buying the same level of access and influence for their
corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and
corporate funds.

With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to
collect $200 million.

To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have
contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to
coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates.

That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in
exchange for my contribution.

Moreover, I don't seek such influence.

My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest.

ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people
engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies.

I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a
different way to level the playing field.

Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best
approach I have found.

I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a
decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation.

I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse
consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned.

Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of the 2004
experience.

Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the
major sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

This bill should be supported.

Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match
for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for
candidates who accept public funding to $75 million -- changes that
would reduce the bias toward big-money donors.

Free airtime for candidates is also important.

This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of
commercials.

Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is
important that people know where financial support is coming from.

I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they
have sparked.

In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to
ensure that the money spent on trying to reelect President Bush
doesn't overwhelm the process.
--

In article
,
Johnny Kudzu wrote:

> From The Washington Post, 12/5/03:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html
>
> Why I Gave
>
> By George Soros


Earth to George: You threw your money away and not a soul cares.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 02:48:25 GMT, "John‰]Â*
Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*"
wrote:

>In article
>,
>Johnny Kudzu wrote:
>
>> From The Washington Post, 12/5/03:
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html
>>
>> Why I Gave
>>
>> By George Soros
>
>
>Earth to George: You threw your money away and not a soul cares.

No he didn't, we are still in Kosovo protecting his interests.

"But now is the time for the younger men to lock in rough encounters, time for me to yield to the pains of old age. But there was a day I shone among the champions."

Homer, The Illiad, 23.715-719 (800 BC). King Nestor of Pylos.

Where and how did you 'get' what you gave? Are you still getting more of
what you gave the same way you always have been collecting. So who is
really loosing so you can give.
Sounds and smells like some real stinky anal gas.....PHEW!!!

George will have a change of heart and will probably cut off the money. It
is doubtful that George would ever sponsor such an effort in view of the tax
laws on NFP's which could effect the Foundation status.
-----------
"Johnny Kudzu" wrote in message
news:cG9wdXA=.ae5d3e4f4a5505968acbccb6ec6179f6@107 0673126.cotse.net...
> From The Washington Post, 12/5/03:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html
>
> Why I Gave
>
> By George Soros
>
> Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A31
>
> I and a number of other wealthy Americans are contributing millions of
> dollars to grass-roots organizations engaged in the 2004 presidential
> election.
>
> We are deeply concerned with the direction in which the Bush
> administration is taking the United States and the world.
>
> If Americans reject the president's policies at the polls, we can
> write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration and resume our
> rightful place in the world.
>
> If we endorse those policies, we shall have to live with the hostility
> of the world and endure a vicious cycle of escalating violence.
>
> In this effort, I have committed $10 million to America Coming
> Together, a grass-roots get-out-the-vote operation, and $2.5 million
> to the MoveOn.org Voter Fund, a popular Internet advocacy group that
> is airing advertisements to highlight the administration's misdeeds.
>
> This is a pittance in comparison with money raised and spent by
> conservative groups.
>
> Rather than a debate on the issues, there's been a lot of name-calling
> by such groups as the Republican National Committee and the National
> Rifle Association.
>
> In an attempt to taint the groups I support and intimidate other
> donors, they imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I
> have somehow broken the law.
>
> In fact, I have scrupulously abided by both the letter and the spirit
> of the law.
>
> Both America Coming Together and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund are "527"
> organizations -- referring to Section 527 of the tax code -- which are
> entitled to receive unlimited contributions from individuals.
>
> Both groups are fully transparent about their motives and activities.
>
> Both file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators.
>
> The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was an attempt to limit the
> influence that special interests can gain by financing candidates and
> to level the playing field between the two parties.
>
> My contributions are made in that spirit.
>
> President Bush has a huge fundraising advantage because he has figured
> out a clever way to raise money.
>
> He relies on donors he calls "Pioneers," who collect $100,000 apiece
> in campaign contributions in increments that fall within the legal
> limit of $2,000 a person, and on those he calls "Rangers," who collect
> at least $200,000.
>
> Many of these Pioneers and Rangers are corporate officials who are
> well situated to raise funds from their business associates, bundle
> them together and pass them along with tracking numbers to ensure
> proper "credit."
>
> They are buying the same level of access and influence for their
> corporate interests that they previously obtained with their own and
> corporate funds.
>
> With the help of Pioneers and Rangers, President Bush is on track to
> collect $200 million.
>
> To counter the fundraising advantage obtained by this strategy, I have
> contributed to independent organizations that by law are forbidden to
> coordinate their activities with the political parties or candidates.
>
> That law minimizes or eliminates the ability to purchase influence in
> exchange for my contribution.
>
> Moreover, I don't seek such influence.
>
> My contributions are made in what I believe to be the common interest.
>
> ACT is working to register voters, and MoveOn is getting more people
> engaged in the national debate over Bush's policies.
>
> I recognize that the system is imperfect, and I wish there were a
> different way to level the playing field.
>
> Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund is the best
> approach I have found.
>
> I have been an advocate of campaign finance reform for almost a
> decade, including the legal defense of the current legislation.
>
> I recognize that every new regulation has unintended adverse
> consequences, but this does not mean reform should be abandoned.
>
> Clearly, the rules need to be updated in the light of the 2004
> experience.
>
> Some good proposals have already surfaced, including one from the
> major sponsors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
>
> This bill should be supported.
>
> Among other measures, it calls for an increase in the federal match
> for small contributions and would raise the spending limit for
> candidates who accept public funding to $75 million -- changes that
> would reduce the bias toward big-money donors.
>
> Free airtime for candidates is also important.
>
> This would reduce the cost of campaigns and the distorting effect of
> commercials.
>
> Full disclosure and transparency are clearly beneficial. It is
> important that people know where financial support is coming from.
>
> I have been open about my contributions, and I welcome the debate they
> have sparked.
>
> In the meantime, as the debate continues, my contributions help to
> ensure that the money spent on trying to reelect President Bush
> doesn't overwhelm the process.
> --
>
>

world champion whinger at work


"John?] "
wrote in message
news:051220032048246287%jmerk06@Invalid.earthlink. net...
> In article
> ,
> Johnny Kudzu wrote:
>
> > From The Washington Post, 12/5/03:
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Dec4.html
> >
> > Why I Gave
> >
> > By George Soros
>
>
> Earth to George: You threw your money away and not a soul cares.