by Sharon Theimer, Associated Press|
Dec. 15, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Michael Toner, a former attorney for President Bush's election and the Republican National Committee, was chosen Thursday by fellow members of the Federal Election Commission to head the FEC in 2006.
The commission was formed after the Watergate scandal to enforce the nation's campaign finance laws. The chairmanship rotates annually between Republicans and Democrats on the six-member commission.
Toner, one of three Republicans on the FEC, will succeed current chairman Scott Thomas, a Democrat. Danny McDonald, one of the commission's other two Democratic members, will serve as vice chairman next year.
Toner was general counsel of Bush's 2000 campaign and became the RNC's lead lawyer in 2001. Bush named him to the FEC in 2002, and the Senate confirmed him to the job the following year.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, Toner joined Thomas in pressing the FEC to rein in political groups spending unlimited donations in the presidential race despite campaign finance rules meant to keep such money out of federal elections. Other commissioners disagreed with the two about how far the commission could or should go in cracking down on the groups.
Toner and Thomas also have urged Congress to consider overhauling the presidential public financing system, which provides taxpayer money to presidential candidates who agree to limit their campaign spending.
The two commissioners argue the program should offer candidates more money to give them an incentive to participate. Last year's presidential race marked the first time both major party nominees skipped public financing in the primaries.
As originally published
Commentary by Helen & Harry Highwater:|
Another crony, in another position of power.
I don't know much about Michael Toner, beyond what's mentioned in this article -- he's a loyal Republican, and former attorney for Bush's campaign and the Republican Party.
What the hell else do you need to know?
Unless you know nothing at all about recently rigged American elections, you know what Bush's operatives know:
He's one more crook pretending to keep an eye on the crooks, one more strike against any hope of fair elections in America.
=Helen & Harry Highwater=
Despite what you may have heard,|
the exit polls were right
The 2004 election was stolen --
will someone please tell the media?
Kerry suspects 2004 election was stolen
John Kerry says he kept quiet, allowed Bush to steal the 2004 election, because he feared his objections would be viewed as "sour grapes."
Justice Dept review found Texas redistricting illegal, disenfranchised minorities ... but OK'd by Bush-Cheney political appointees anyway
Sorry, no, we won't buy that canard.
If I'm extremely charitable I can almost forgive Al Gore for yielding in the 2000 election, because the notion that a presidential election might be brazenly stolen by the Supreme Court was something of a surprise. By 2004, another stolen election was no surprise at all, yet Kerry was so milquetoast he wouldn't even make a fuss.
He conceded the election, and the democracy, overnight.
Sincerely and with all due respect to John Kerry, the word for that is 'treason'. Same for the Democratic Party. =Helen & Harry Highwater= | LINK
with comments by Madeline Zane, Rebecca, and Helen & Harry Highwater
FBI planted fake candidate
in West Virginia election
with comments by Helen & Harry Highwater
Diebold CEO who "delivered" Ohio to Bush resigns; may face insider trading charges
Diebold voting machines hacked in
Florida test, county vows to switch vendors
|All republished material is copyrighted by its original publisher.|
It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission, solely for purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of U.S.C. Title 17:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
There's much more than this at Unknown News.