What I’m waiting for is someone to file for a TRO against the MEC to stop them from backpedaling on the law.

The candidates were following the law, and until that law is either thrown out or held up by a restraining order, it is the law.

The MEC should have allowed those that raised money prior to the court decision that overturned the law to keep the money they raised.

If that provides an unfair advantage over those that didn’t raise money, too bad.

I’ve never seen a law applied after the fact like this one has been.

Hey, the fools ALL KNEW before they took dime one that a suit had been filed and the money might have to go back to over-limit donors. You’re just whining because the GOP has to give back more. WAh! WAh! Wah!

Great for Donnelly! If there is nothing to hide, then why the secrecy. I am all for open government.

I agree that it should be open, but Timbo … get a clue.

Ever hear of Ex Post Facto?

It doesn’t matter if the challenge had been filed, there was nothing in place to restrict the law. Once that restriction is put in place, it should revert back to the previous law.

Period.

I challenge you to come up with any other example of such a situation.

Everyone’s already agreed to give back their over-the-limit contributions. It seems Donnelly is desperately trying to make an issue where one does not exist. In legal terminology, this would be called “moot.” If donnelly ever stepped foot in a real courtroom, she’d know this.

Jim: You need to get a clue yourself. It is the GOP change to the law that was ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. As such, there’s nothing remarkable about it being retroactive, unless of course you’re suggesting that people should be allowed to violate the constitution.

Jim
Regardless of whether the decision to return OTL contributions is right or wrong, to have the hearings in secret is definitely wrong.

Shecky, you’re absolutely wrong in your assertion that this was a GOP change to the law. This was bi-partisan, being pushed by Tim Green for years.

Talk all you want about evil greedy republicans raising tons of cash, but when the dust settles, you’re going to find that they’re raising just as much, it’s just more difficult to trace.

Meanwhile, Common Sense is correct in that everyone (of substance) has agreed to refund contributions, but the law was changed, period. Once that law went into effect, it is the law of the land until a judge issues a restraining order or throws it out completely.

These candidates, republican, democrat, libertarian, etc., were following the law at the time, and shouldn’t be punished for it.

A few years ago, the legislature revised some of the criminal statutes and inadvertently legalized beastiality in Missouri. What is your take on that? Should those that went “hog wild” during that time be punished?

Why or why not?

Be careful with your answer, boys and girls. Once it’s in (or not in) the statutes, it’s still the law.

P.S. Suzyjax, I agree with you.

Nice try, Jim. It was a GOP majority and Governor Blunt that passed this bill. Did a couple of Democrats vote for it? Sure. But that hardly makes it “bipartisan.” If the GOP didn’t have the majority, this bill wouldn’t have passed, and a Democratic governor would have vetoed it.

As far as these candidates “being punished,” they’re not. They’re being told that they can’t unfairly benefit from an unconstitutional change to the law. If they are going to suffer a “hardship” as a result of returning the money, then they have every right to make their case. Therefore, no one is being punished. Instead, everyone is being required to play on a level field.

Good to see that you’re keeping up to snuff with the state’s beastiality laws though. It’s probably the best way for you to maintain your love affair with red herrings.

No sense,

If you read more than a blog you would know that many reps and senators are requesting hardship hearings. check out some of the print stories in papers around the state.