Most Americans still do not know who Richard Scaife is
or how much he has done to undermine free press and
our political system with his bankrolling of the "vast
reich-wing conspiracy" (read Blinded By the Right" by
David Brock or "Hunting of the President" by Gene
Lyonsand Joe Conason for corroboration). But why
doesn't the American electorate know? Because instead
of educating the public about Scaife and where he
money was going, the "US mainstream media" chose to
mock then First Lady now Senator Hillary Rodham
Clinton for calling it what it is -- a
conspiracy...Now, of course, the American electorate
is going to hear a lot about George Soros, who is
contributing tens of millions of dollars to defeat the
_resident, but most of what they hear will be fed to
them by that very real "vast reich-wing conspiracy."
Take a few moments to read the noble Soros response...
George Soros under attack: Rather than a debate on the issues, there has been a lot of name-calling about my donations by such organizations as the Republican National Committee and the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint the groups that I support and to intimidate other donors, those organizations imply that my contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow broken the law.
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1212-04.htm
Published on Friday, December 12, 2003 by the Miami
Herald
A Lot of Name-Calling About My Donations
by George Soros
Many other wealthy Americans and I 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 voters reject the president's policies, America can
write off the Bush Doctrine as a temporary aberration
and resume its rightful place in the world. But if
they endorse those policies, the United States 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 U.S.
conservative groups.
Rather than a debate on the issues, there has been a
lot of name-calling about my donations by such
organizations as the Republican National Committee and
the National Rifle Association. In an attempt to taint
the groups that I support and to intimidate other
donors, those organizations imply that my
contributions are illegitimate or that I have somehow
broken the law.
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 organizations that,
according to a specific reference in the U.S. tax
code, 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 most recent campaign-finance law attempts to limit
the influence that special interests can gain by
financing candidates and so level the playing field
between the Republican and Democratic 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
that any individual can give; 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'' to each individual donor of $2,000. Thus
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 these Pioneers and Rangers, 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
that there were a different way to level the playing
field. Making contributions to ACT and the MoveOn.org
Voter Fund is the best approach that 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 that 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
current campaign-finance legislation. 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.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Management Fund.
Copyright 1996-2003 Knight Ridder