Rural DemRural Dem

Note to Christians: We need to end our affair with Constantine. It?s over?or it ought to be. When the fourth-century emperor made Christianity the state religion, our love affair with political power began. We wanted to change the world, and we thought this would help.

Now after 17 centuries of experience in the courts of secular power, there are few (in the US at least) that think we have anything to do with change. We are defined as a rock-solid and morally righteous political block of social conservatives, either to be wooed or rendered ineffectual, depending on your point-of-view.

The clout of the so-called religious right is waning. Blame it on the lack of a unifying candidate if you want to, but as a Christian I think this is a good thing. Political power is the opiate of the religious. Ironically, the very power we sought has stripped our true effectiveness, and defined us as merely another political force among many.

So it?s over, Connie. This will actually be good for both of us.

For the first 300 years of our existence the Christian community was decidedly counter-culture, without secular status or power. We were known for our love and community; our growth came mostly from among the poor. Then with Constantine we gained a champion who blended cross, sword and earthly wealth. We rose out of the catacombs and into the courts of the civic lords.

The Bible refers to us collectively as the ?Bride of Christ.? Our dalliance with this handsome patrician Constantine was the first of our serial adulteries with rulers good and bad: Charlemagne, Henry, Catherine, Francisco, Benito, William, George?all of them. We leveraged them, or they us. Shamefully, at our worst, we became accomplices-by-silence, as we did in 1930?s Germany.

Our role remains shallow today if all we do is find candidates or political causes with the values closest to our own and then endorse them. If our work does not actually target the greatest need for change, in the human heart, we have instead merely adopted the American secular power system (admittedly the best one out there) and then tried to dress it up with our morals. Given the failing and sin that occupies even the best of human systems, this approach is a bit like putting lipstick on a pig.

At our very core we represent an entirely different order, one that is deeply suspicious of all worldly power. The Christian concept of authority is upside-down from the rest of the world; we believe that to be great is to be a servant, and that the last shall be first. We believe in turning the other cheek and in loving our enemies. These are difficult to live out practically, but nobody claimed it would be easy.

This ought to produce Christian citizens who are engaged and involved, making decisions for the practical good of the world order. We have a good example of this in one of our own evangelicals, William Wilberforce, who worked to end English slave trade in 1833.

For most of the issues that divide liberals and conservatives, there is not a ?Christian position.? Believers disagree about the role of government in economics, or whether any certain worldly conflict is just. I hate to startle or anger my evangelical friends, but this means that a committed, born-again evangelical Christians can just as likely be a Democrat as Republican.

Jesus told us to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar?s and to God the things that are God?s. These two citizenships are not to be confused. I am a Christian, and because of that, I am in nobody?s camp. If I am persuaded you may have my vote, but my heart belongs to God.

Why does everything have to be held up to a standard of political correctness nowadays? Lately, it has pretty much become obvious that people are very careful about what they say to certain people, because they will be slapped with accusations of being politically incorrect ? which, of course, includes words like ?discrimination?. It’s fascinating to note that linguistically, we had evolved in such a way that things that were either once admired or thought of as something that one isn’t exactly a person’s fault are now thought of as negative or something to be held against someone ? just because we are, as a world, deathly afraid of offending what is perceived to be a minority that has become aware of its powers to claim certain rights.

Like what was previously mentioned, words like ?discrimination? have been waved around by people as things to be shunned. In the past, ?discrimination? meant discernment, a particular skill or ability to recognize the subtle differences or distinctions between two or more things. To have discrimination, in some senses, is to have a refined taste. But now, ?to discriminate? is almost exclusively used to define anything that involves treating a person or a group of persons as if they were less than equal to one’s self or one’s peers.

Another favorite example would be the term ?homophobia?. A comedian had once commented that ?phobia? is a crippling fear of something, and as such, homophobic individuals (or homophobes, as they are colloquially known) really should have more sympathy for their plight. Other individuals with phobias were given the necessary support for their condition, while homophobic people are shunned, called ?sick? and often berated by others by their so-called insensitivity. The entire spiel was funny, but what made it better is the fact that it made people think about the words used to describe how people react to each other, and about what words we use to identify prejudice.

It seems that in a world that is hell-bent on becoming politically correct, we had ended up with a language that is politically incorrect ? or at the very least, a language that is sorely misused. Homophobia especially, is an obvious misnomer in that it is more like a hatred of homosexual individuals than a fear of them.

Another fascinating effect of this global culture of political correctness would be the fact that in our quest to expand the reach of rights to include everybody, other rights, such as the rights to expression, have been curtailed. Granted, certain expressions such as violence and the like could hardly be beneficial to an increasingly interconnected global society. Still, the fear of offending apparent minority groups have made us believe that tiptoeing around certain issues would be better than confronting it. It seems that rather than dealing with potential conflict, we simply fold to the apparent whims of these people. Furthermore, in an attempt to elevate the status of the minority, the double standards have been switched around.

An example of this pretty much relates to things like religion and race. Not too long ago, in London, a sixteen-year-old student had protested the fact that her expression of her Christian faith ? a purity ring that symbolized her commitment to chastity before marriage ? was deemed ?against school policy? by her local school. The fact that Muslim students in that same educational establishment and area were supposedly allowed to wear their full-faced veils just made things worse ? it seems that the majority is now expected to bend over backwards to make the minority uncomfortable. Why is it, one has to ask, that the Muslims are allowed to openly display their faith to the world while the Christians are not?

And it seems that any frustration that the majority has expressed over this obvious double-standard is currently viewed as a kind of bigotry. Why is no one allowed to be angry about this? Is this not also a kind of injustice? In the end, we are going back to a time of closed lips and silence, fostering inequality while at the same time claiming we are working for equality. It is truly, horribly, frustrating that the concept of political correctness has come to the fore, when at the end of the day all that really matters is honest and genuine kindness.

The problem may very well be that people are expected to be like everybody else, that people are expected to bow down to the norm. These days, the norm would be acceptance or, at the very least, tolerance. But one cannot expect everyone to feel the same way about women, men, homosexuals, different races, and different faiths. This is not to say that hatred should be fostered, but it begs the question of why discomfort with ideologies and lifestyles should not be understood and expressed. If we are indeed living in a world of tolerance, dislike of certain things should be tolerated as well as the acceptance of certain things.

We need not develop a new vocabulary to describe this state of affairs, for in the end, shouldn’t this be a matter of the heart and soul?

Americans demonstrated their concerns over middle eastern energy dependence on fossil fuels and rising gas prices with a landslide defeat of Republican energy policies. These concerns are inextricably linked to fuel efficient cars and cleaner alternative fuels. The Democrats big win was a major bolster to green cars and alternative fuels.

Among the most striking politcal changes is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Previously it was Republican James Inhofe, who referred to global warming as “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind,”. Now Barbara Boxer is in, a California Democrat who strongly advocates mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

A close second to the most striking changes is in the House Resources Committee. Jerry McNerney, a California Democrat and wind-energy executive, will replace the current Republican chairman, Richard W. Pombo, who fought to open public lands to private interests.

Fuel efficient standards are emerging as a major political topic. Fuel-efficiency has declined during the past decade for nine of the 13 major manufacturers selling vehicles in the United States, according to a new study by the Consumer Federation of America.

Money losing U.S. automakers say that they can’t compete with fuel efficient imports as they suffer from a more than $1,000-per-vehicle disadvantage of higher costs for health insurance and pensions and therefore require government bailouts. This argument is continuing to lose steam though as profitable companies like Honda now produce more than 80% of their vehicles in the US and Canada.

Democrat Edward Markey has proposed raising combined light truck-car standards to an average of 33 miles per gallon by 2016 models. Democrat Barack Obama proposed increasing the average to 40.5 mpg for passenger vehicles and 32.6 mpg for the light-truck category, which includes SUVs, by 2020. Jerry McNerney, who defeated Pombo in California, says he will “dramatically increase the fuel efficiency of new vehicles.”

Fuel efficiency and energy independence is already taking a foothold in the next presedential election as likely Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona and Democrat/Independent Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut both wish to address global warming. This will put even more pressure on the current Bush administration to cooperate with the Democrats as the Republicans look to avoid another blowout.

The future is definitely looking a little greener.

In the year 2006, well before the new century was more than a decade old, the American people decided they´d had enough of the Republicans´ shenanigans. Specifically, they´d had enough of George W. Bush and his administration lying us into war, violating the constitution and doing its best to shred that fine document, the legacy of our founding fathers. Before the November election, there seemed to be an electricity in the air. People were fed up then and were ready to elect new faces, new ideas, into congress to force change in the direction of the old regime, something George Bush continuously refused to do. I was not so positive. In fact, and my writing suggested this, I was more or less certain we were going to get more of the same old, same old.

My friend and coworker Valentine was far more optimistic than I was. He told me he felt that once the Democrats were in power they would impeach the president. I told him I didn´t believe that. As much as I would have liked to believe and as much as I feel that if any president ever deserved impeachment, George Bush is that president, I didn´t think anything was going to be done about his reign of terror. I told Valentine as much. When he asked me why I felt as I did, I explained to him that not only were the Democrats and Republicans cut from the same cloth, two sides of the same coin, so to speak, but that Nancy Pelosi, that all powerful congresswoman from California, had said as much when she proclaimed that impeachment was off the table.

Valentine was quick to defend his new hope. He certainly didn´t want to give into pessimism as I had already done. He told me that she (Nancy Pelosi) was just playing politics and that once the Democrats took over the pressure would build, she´d change her tune, impeachment proceedings would begin, worries of a new war with Iran would subside, flowers would bloom, children would frolic and play, the world would be set to rights and all would be harmonious in the universe. “I hope you´re right,” I told Valentine as I returned to my bench to work. It was all I could do at the time. I did hope he was right, but in my heart there wasn´t much hope. I understood that Valentine was a hopeless dreamer like I am, but he was putting his faith in politicians who had already proven themselves to be unreliable and corruptible at best and criminal at worst. I put my faith in the common man, which may not be much better, but at least the vast majority of common folk are honest, hard working people.

And so the Democrats became the majority in both the House and Senate and we waited for something to happen. We waited for change to come. It never did. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats kept the status quo. Just like the Republicans before them, the Democrats continued to disrespect, disregard and disobey the Constitution. And what did our magnificent “free press” and the mass media have to say about all this? Nothing of consequence. They may report the facts briefly so that they can claim they´re not being negligent in their duty to disseminate accurate information, but their commentary for the most part continues to sound like cheerleading for one team or the other and drastically fails to bring any sort of meaningful dialogue of the truly important issues to the forefront of American political discourse. This is as true today as it was in 2006 and long before. The mass media sold out the American electorate long ago and continues its betrayal to this day. The Democrats, having decided to go along with their unprincipled leadership, failed to follow through on the public´s mandates to end the war in Iraq, prosecute or at least indict those in the executive who so gravely abused their power, and restore constitutional restraints to a federal government gone amuck in their zeal to find boogiemen hiding in closets across this nation.

It´s been nearly two years now and still nothing has changed. Nothing has been accomplished. The government continues to grow. Our troops remain in harm´s way in a country we never should have attacked or at least should have left long ago after the defeat of its military. It should be obvious to most by now that the Democrats have once again betrayed us, as political parties have done time and time again. But, they had a chance to rectify at least some of that not too long ago. Just last week they had a chance to vote down a piece of legislation that would validate Bush´s actions and leave unaccountable those who would violate the rules of the Constitution. This bill, the new “FISA Amendments Act”, should have easily been defeated since the Democrats have control of both the House and the Senate. But it was not. The House passed it a couple of weeks ago and last week the Senate passed it by a large margin. Many Democrats flocked to the Republicans´ side and once again betrayed those who voted them into office by passing this piece of legislation which completely disregards the fourth amendment. They have, in essence, told us that they think it´s okay for federal agents to spy on all of us without warrants, and it seems as if they´re trying to give their friend, President George W. Bush, and his cronies a pass on an unconstitutional, impeachable, unconscionable, and unnecessary offense which was committed long before any act of Congress was implemented. And so Democrats who were hoping for restoration of civil liberties are once again ignored and excluded by their own party.

Most surprising of all, or perhaps not so surprising, was the vote of one Barack Obama. Here is a man running for president that promises change. I have before wondered what kind of change he offers. Perhaps we can get a glimpse at that now. He voted for the “FISA Amendments Act.” He voted to keep the powers to spy on Americans without warrant. He voted to continue a campaign which will chill the bones of those who disagree with government policy. His vote was perhaps the most important as so many of his fellow Democrats voted according to his leadership. This is not change. With this vote, Mr. Obama shows us his true nature. He cares not for the individual. He cares not for those who simply wish to live in freedom. He is a collectivist. He will abuse his power. He is no better than any other politician pretending to care while he attempts to force the common man, AKA the little folk, deeper into servitude. Mr. Obama, who in the past voted against a similar bill, has flip-flopped on this issue and so who knows on what other issues he may suddenly have a change of mind? Perhaps Mr. Obama believes he will almost certainly one day be president and he wishes to keep such an awesome power so that one day he too may punish his political adversaries.

Now the question becomes, “What will the mass media have to say about all this?” Apparently not much. They seem to have kept pretty quiet about all this and have decided to focus on other issues that maybe aren´t quite as important. I doubt very much that we´ll hear Kieth Oberman deride Mr. Obama as he so often and effectively does with Mr. Bush. When Mr. Bush violates the Constitution, it´s bad, but not so if Mr. Obama does. After all, Barack Obama is a Democrat and Kieth likes Democrats. They can do no wrong. They will set the world to rights. Once they get into office, harmony will be restored to the universe. If you believe that, well, I wouldn´t hold my breath if I were you. The betrayal is complete. We´re on our own. One can only hope that at some point there becomes an outcry so loud that those in power cannot ignore it. Until such a time, I wish the best of luck to you.

Did you find this article useful?  For more useful tips and   hints, points to ponder and keep in mind, techniques, and insights pertaining to credit card, do please browse for more information at our websites.
<a onClick=”javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview(’/outgoing/article_exit_link’);” href=”http://www.yoursgoogleincome.com
“>http://www.yoursgoogleincome.com
</a>                                     
<a onClick=”javascript:pageTracker._trackPageview(’/outgoing/article_exit_link’);” href=”http://www.freeearningtip.com
“>http://www.freeearningtip.com
</a>

A wave of political change has been sweeping across the continent of Europe. In country after country, the politics of liberal, high tax, big government have been falling like dominos. It started in Germany with the election of Angela Merkel. It visited France with the victory of Nicholas Sarkozy. It was in evidence in Italy with an historic rout of the Communists and the Greens in parliamentary elections. Then, it hit England last week when the Labor Party suffered its worst local election results in 40 years.

In fact, in contests for more than 4,000 local seats across England, Conservatives captured 44 percent of the vote, compared to 25 percent for the Liberal Democrats and just 24 percent for the Labor Party. The election result was so bad for Labor that Boris Johnson became the first Conservative Party member ever elected mayor of London. Overall, it was an election that Prime Minister, Gordon Brown admitted was “bad and disappointing”. Certainly, the prospects in the next general election for the Labor Party are now looking grim.

Meanwhile, a new BBC public opinion poll suggests even more trouble ahead for United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown. In the poll, Tory leader David Cameron is seen as more effective than Brown or Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg.

This should be a year that the Democratic Party sweeps to victory. The Democrats have an unpopular Republican war in Iraq to talk about. President George W. Bush is very unpopular in all the national public opinion polls. The Republican brand of less government, lower taxes, and less spending has been badly damaged during the last few years of dubious congressional stewardship. In addition, the next several months are likely to bring the prospect of an economic recession to the country.

Indeed, the reasons that should cheer any Democratic voter’s heart seems to go on and on. The choice of John McCain for the Presidential nomination means that the Republican Party will feature the oldest Presidential candidate in history. In addition, McCain has alienated Republican conservatives and, therefore, the Republican party is not united and less than enthusiastic for the general election in the fall. Also, it is a year that the voters are unimpressed with old time politicians and established political institutions and are interested in change. Both Democratic candidates should appeal to the public’s desire for change in that they are the first black man and the first female running as major candidates for the highest office in the land.

However, the Democrats are engaged in a tedious and increasingly contentious primary election gridlock. Compromised by dubious convention rules, it is an election that never seems to end even though in reality it is already over. Hillary Clinton cannot catch Barack Obama in the number of pledged delegates or popular vote. The Democratic Party will not overturn the will of the primary voter and alienate black voters. So, it is an election campaign that Hillary Clinton has already lost but will not concede. The print and television media use the relative closeness of the race and ambiguous Democratic convention rules to continue the false illusion of a tight down to the wire battle between the two candidates. The end result of all this appears to be stalemate for several more months.

So, every day, the Democratic primary election becomes more personal and contentious without apparent reason. We hear references to Monica Lewinsky’s black dress from the Obama campaign to bring back our memories of the personal failings in office of President Bill Clinton. The dubious speeches of Obama’s retired pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright seen in print, television news, and You tube underscore the divisive issue of race that has recently entered into the campaign.

Indeed, each candidate’s campaign issues political statements of personal destruction: Barack Obama is only where he is because he is a black man according to Geraldine Ferraro. Hillary Clinton is a monster according to an aide to Barack Obama. Bill Richardson is Judas for endorsing Obama according to James Carville. All of these headlines have appeared in just the last couple of weeks and there is no end to it yet in sight.

This contentious, personal, primary election is also dividing the Democratic Party voter base. Recent exit polling data from the Pennsylvania primary mirror national polling that indicates about 20% of each candidate’s base of support would not vote for the other Democratic candidate in the fall election. A Gallup poll indicates that nearly 30% of Hillary Clinton supporters nationally will not support another Democratic nominee in the fall.

Meanwhile, Republican John McCain looks very Presidential as he takes a foreign tour and raises money for the 2008 general election this fall. Next, he plans to do a national tour highlighting his background and visiting areas in the country where recent public opinion polls have begun to show weakness for Barack Obama. (Blue collar white voters and Latino voters). Of course, McCain will continue to raise money to prepare for the fall election campaign while the Democrats continue to spend millions on their remaining state primaries.

The contrast between the two political parties has begun to show up in the public opinion polling data for the general election campaign in the fall as well. It should be no surprise that the Republicans are the beneficiary. John McCain now leads Barack Obama by ten percentage points in a national match up. This is a reversal of the polling statistics of just one month ago. In addition, McCain has hit his highest voter favor ability rating (56%-Rasmussen) while Obama has just attained his highest voter unfavorabilty rating of (52%-Rasmussen). Polling in many electoral states crucial to a November Republican Presidential election victory also show a movement of voter support to John McCain. If this Democratic stalemate continues for another three months, public opinion concerning each of the Democratic candidates could get even worse.

An unpopular Iraq war and the failing economy are opportunities for a Democratic sweep in the 2008 Presidential election. However, a contentious primary election stalemate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for another three months would continue to hurt the Democratic Party in the fall general election campaign. It certainly does appear that this bitter Democratic primary election stalemate bodes well for Republican, John McCain.

Often volunteers are asked to place political yard signs at specified locations for a candidate but are not provided tips on the best way to place them to maximize their effectiveness. Utilizing some important tips can increase the visibility of the sign and improve the chances of people remembering the name on the sign.

The Proper Sign Angle

Placing the signs at approximately a 90 degree angle to the nearby road will allow drivers to begin reading the election signs as soon as possible. Drivers often only have a few seconds of time to glance at a sign and digest the message, so placing election signs at an optimal angle increases the chances that they will be read.

Don’t try and grab the attention of all the traffic on the street. When election signs are placed at corners, place them so they are ideally situated for one direction of traffic and not all four. If volunteers attempt to get the attention of everyone driving on the street the sign will probably be difficult for everyone to read and the candidate will not be able to take advantage of a great location. Spending the extra money and placing election signs on all of the corners is an excellent strategy.

Height Placement – Political Yard Signs

Experts recommend situating the election signs a half a foot to a foot from the ground. Signs attached to poles or fences and placed up high are typically not safe for a driver to read while traveling down the road.

Study the area and decide the likelihood of the sign being stolen or damaged. Find out if there is a history of sign damage in particular neighborhoods in your voting district. You can still place election signs in the area but don’t place your large signs made from expensive material. Placing your signs in public property areas will increase the chances of it not being removed.

Target Particular Voters

It’s not enough just to place sign at heavy traffic areas. If you want to get the attention of young voters place the political yard signs near shopping malls and at their entrances. Place them at nearby colleges and areas of town that are known for nightlife.

Position them at office centers to increase the candidates name recognition with business people. Situating them near schools will increase name recognition with adults who take their children to school. Popular movie theaters and grocery stores are other excellent locations. Shopping centers are good locations when targeting women voters.

Distance From The Road

Check with your local officials regarding how close the political yard signs can be to the road. Most cities require signs to be more than 10 feet away from the road. Also, if they are being placed on actual lawns whether on public or private property keep in mind that the lawns will occasionally be mowed and signs can be damaged or removed from the ground.

Selecting high traffic locations and appropriate places for target groups as well as properly situating the election signs can significantly increase the number of people who will notice the signs and increase the readability of them. It’s important that staff and volunteers be trained to effectively place political yard signs in order to increase a candidate’s name recognition.

Clumping

Often signs that are placed in groups of three or four properties in a row can give the impression that there are more supporters. This concept of clumping yard signs together can also make a smaller number of signs look like more that what really there. If you get a yard sign request from one residence be sure to ask the residence on either side for their assistance in your campaign sign placement.

Dandelion signs

Every spring, overnight it seems, the green landscape changes to a sea of yellow spots as the dandelions bloom. The reason this change in nature is so noticeable, is because it happens rather abruptly. The same technique can be applied to how you put up your yard signs. Candidates who gradually release their yard signs are missing out on a lot of the impact a political or Business sign can have.

The best way to catch people’s attention with your signs is to map out 90% of all your yard sign’s locations before your signs even arrive. Then on one evening get all the volunteers you can muster together and put the majority of your signs up all at once. The next morning, your constituents will drive to work noticing the vast change in the landscape. Suddenly they want to know; what this new candidate all about, and why are so many people rallying behind them. First impressions are everything, and this can be an effective “wake-up call” to not only the voters, but also your opponent, and shaken opponents tend to make irrational decisions.

Timing

Probably the most frequently ask question we hear is, “How far out should I put my signs in the ground.” While the consulting community has debated this issue for years most would conclude that you want your signs to be release when people have their minds on elections. For most elections this means signs should go up about 30-40 days prior to early voting. (For elections that do not have early voting 30-40 days from the actual election) If signs are put out much sooner than this people begin to get used to seeing them and they forget what they’re even about. Yard signs sent out much later than 20 days loose the effectiveness to become household names.

What is it that is button-less, collarless, and pocket-less, with a round neck and short sleeves? What is perhaps the most comfortable and ubiquitous garment in the world? A Tee shirt that?s what! And what is it that makes a political statement, declares electoral allegiance and shows support for the candidature or other cause? A political tee shirt that?s what! Every time the elections roll around, there is a fresh innovation in the world of tee shirt design, and there is a slew of Graphic Tees, or funny tshirts with a political message that start gaining popularity instantly. Political tees can be used to make any kind of statement be it on the environment, democracy, freedom, war and peace or electoral candidate.

There is a whole lot of funny tshirts inspired by President George W Bush and not in a nice way I may add. So it is that you have a graphic tee of a diminutive Bush, with an elongated shadow behind him that of the evil character from Star Wars, Darth Vader, complete with brandished sword, with the caption Dubya Vader! Here?s another: Who would Jesus Bomb? The answer is just a picture of a silly smiling Bush.

Then there are those tees that declare you to be a conservative or a liberal: here is a really funny tee; I?d rather be a conservative nut job than a liberal with no nuts and no job. Or what about this one that claims to list the Top Ten Good Things About Liberals and then has a list with numbers 10 to 2 left blank, and the number 1 being They Die Eventually. Even though the message is a little hostile you can?t help but smile. And here is one that does not mince any words about what the wearer thinks about Liberals: I just neutered a cat. Now he?s a liberal. Then of course there are all of those Tees which declare to all and sundry who you are going to vote for in the next election.

Graphic tees can be used sometimes be used to make a serious political statement, say one relating to the environment: A stark black tee with a monochrome picture of planet Earth on it, bears the slogan There is no Planet B, an effective way to remind people that we need to take care of mother Earth it?s the only one we have! Another thought provoking one would be a plain tee with the drawing of a tree on in, only the branches of the tree look more like the human brain and the words Think Green printed on it compel you to think.

As the 2008 Presidential Election goes into high gear, people from cities such as Del Mar, Rancho Santa Fe and La Jolla in San Diego to cities such as Laguna Beach, Anaheim, Irvine and Yorba Linda in Orange County, from Santa Maria to Santa Barbara to Ventura and Oxnard, to Rancho Cucamonga, Fontana, Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Fullerton to Indian Wells, Palm Springs, Palm Desert and La Quinta both individuals and candidates are having questions about campaign election finance laws and are looking for a California campaign election finance lawyer who can advise them.

In the world of political campaign finance law, in the past few elections, the most important issue has been soft money. Today, soft money is still important, but it ranks with the money being raised and spent by national party committees and with the greater use of the internet, 2008 has brought individual contributions to a higher level of importance that ranks in importance with soft money and national party money.

While soft money or unregulated money can be spent for any advertising that stops short of expressly advocating the election or defeat of an individual, it is that broad definition that allows it to still be used in advertising that goes so far as to allow the advertising to mention a candidate, and virtually call him or her out for their position on an issue. Such advertising is in many cases blatant negative advertising.

Corporate and labor PACs raise money from restricted individuals. Labor PACs raise money from their union employees, corporation PACs from managerial employees and stockholders and their family members.

In the last 60 days before a federal election, PACs hands are untied and they can not only advocate political issues but also mention federal election candidates in their in their advertising.

Under the Federal Election Campaign Act, an organization becomes a political committee by receiving contributions or making expenditures in excess of $1,000 to influence a federal election.

A 527 Group (which falls into the category of soft money) avoids regulation by the Federal Election Commission because they allegedly use and raise money only for the advocation of issues. Because the line between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy is so thin, the use of these groups is a source of heated debate about soft money. These Groups are not bound by the same restrictions on PACs.

An example of a 527 Group in the 2004 federal election campaign was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth which ran advertisements on television that blatantly attacked John Kerry. The Group was later fined by the Federal Election Commission for specifically advocating the defeat of John Kerry. But by then, the damage had already been done.

Different rules apply to state and local elections. An individual intending to campaign for any elected office needs to know election finance rules and should consult with a political campaign finance attorney as soon as possible in forming their campaign.

TRUE SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY IS DEMOCRATIC