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.

Shecky, this was passed in bi-partisan fashion, and had originally been pushed (for YEARS) by democrat senator Tim Green.

Try knowing what you’re talking about before you attempt to educate me on such issues.

And while I’m at it, shecky, would you please provide for all of us why you think it is unconstitutional to NOT have a contribution limit for candidates?

I’m SO waiting for this one!

Feel free to consult with Garrison or Roy Temple on this one, but I’ll give you a hint: contributions by themselves were NOT rules unconstitutional.

Bark elsewhere.

Jim, the GOP pushed this bill through, Matt Blunt pushed this bill through, and other than Tim Green and a couple of other Democrats, this thing was about as bipartisan as Matt Blunt’s medicaid cuts. Sorry pal, go sell your nonsense elsewhere. It was the GOP that made this change possible. Like I said before, if a Democrat were governor and Democrats were in the majority, this sucker wouldn’t have been made law. Your party made it possible, so your party gets the blame.

Why do you have such an issue with taking responsibility? Seems like a lot of Republicans were patting themselves on the back when they passed the changes.

As far as the GOP changes to the law getting the boot, it was the Supreme Court that threw out the changes to the law, not me. If you’ve got a beef with it, then talk to the bipartisan majority on the court who voted to dump the changes. Granted it was the voters of the state who put the limits in place, but we all know what you Republicans think about the voters.

Why don’t you try barking at yourself for a while.

Shecky, I’ll grant you that the majority of those supporting the bill were republicans. But the issue had been raised for years, quite vocally, by Green. If you can’t accept that much, sorry.

Meanwhile, I’m asking YOU to explain to me how the mere absence of contribution limits is unconstitutional, since you’re such an expert. The court ruled that the ORIGINAL contribution limits, passed by voters, were unconstitutional, but they did NOT rule that the absence of contribution limits were.

There was an entirely different part of the bill that was thrown out.

For you to sit there on your high horse claiming that the absence of contribution limits was unconstitutional, and that these candidates (of both parties) violated the constitution by raising money above and beyond the previous limits is BS.

I don’t expect you to understand that, though.

Jim, I said Green and a handful of other Democrats voted for it. And I know Green wanted the bill, but that’s beside the point that it was because of the GOP majority and Matt Blunt that it became law. I’m not arguing with you at all about Green’s support.

And I’m hardly sitting on a high horse here. You’re the one who takes himself way too seriously. Get over it. The GOP passed a bad law, the court through it out, and in order to ensure that all candidates in the current cycle operated on an level playing field, the court required everyone to give back the money.

It’s not hard to figure out, and it’s entirely because of how your party passed the stinking law. No one but the GOP is to blame, so deal with it.

No, shecky, you’re suggesting that by merely collecting contributions, candidates were violating the constitution, and you’re dead-wrong.

I’m still waiting for you to share with us, from your massive cup of knowledge, exactly what is unconstitutional about the absence of contribution limits, which existed from 1821 till 1994.

I keep giving you this hint: it isn’t.

You just don’t want to understand.

Jim, I’m not the one who claims to know it all. That’s your role, remember? If you’d bother to unbury your head from its partisan chamber, you might realize that I haven’t suggested the limits themselves were unconstitutional. The way that your party made those changes was unconstitutional, and as such, they were booted by the court. Deal with it. Get over yourself. And stop looking for so many arguments. I realize your party is collapsing all around you, but does that mean you really have to be such an angry SOB all the time?