Will liberals really be helped by the new campaign law?

It's odd to see the estimable Thomas B. Edsall  of WaPo--a fellow Dem who likes to bash Dems -- make a basic logical error in his story on Public Citizens's useful survey  of  "Section 527" committees, which will still be able to raise and spend "soft money" even after the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law takes effect.  It doesn't follow, just because currently  most of the big 527s are liberal , that

groups associated with the Democratic Party and liberal causes are likely to be the short-term beneficiaries of the new law that prohibits the parties themselves and members of Congress from raising soft money ...

Once 527s become one of the last remaining conduits for soft money, you can expect all sorts of new groups to start them up, and all sorts of new donors to start contributing. It won't take long to get the word out -- certainly it will happen in time for the next election. Who knows if the newcomers will be liberal or conservative? Not Public Citizen. Not me. Not Edsall. ... You could argue that conservatives, having failed to fully exploit the 527 loophole, have the most to gain. But that would be fallacious too!  ... Note that the fallacy Edsall indulges in -- reification is the fancy word for it -- helped give us the dreaded "political action committees," or PACs. In the 1970s, because there had been few business PACs in the past, unions and Democrats went along with a reform law that enhanced PACs' importance. Corporations didn't have PACs, so helping PACS wouldn't help corporations, right? But, funny thing, once PACs became major fundraising conduits, businesses started forming hundreds of them, until the corporate PACs swamped the union PACs. ... P.S.: You sense Edsall knows his "liberals will benefit" angle is bogus, because he tries vainly to cover himself with fudgewords like "suggest" and "short-term." ..P.P.S: Note the fund-raising succeess of the centrist Dem "New Democrat Network." This only reinforces the idea that Bill Clinton could be a post-presidential power-broker  if he chose to head up the NDN, or an organization like it.  ... Update: Alert (if somewhat paranoid) kf reader "J" of Washington, D.C. e-mails:

When the vote on McCain-Feingold was about to come up, Tom Edsall wrote a story saying it would help Republicans because they raised more hard money. [This is true--ed.] He didn't mention that the soft money ban would close the looming $100 million soft money gap between Dems and Reps in 2003-4. He was looking to fool a few Republicans into voting for McCain-Feingold. Now the FEC is starting to write the regs for the new law, and Edsall brings out an (illogical) article saying liberals will do well outside the new law. Does he hope [Federal Election Commissioners] Mason, Smith or the new guy will vote for tighter regs to punish the liberals. ...

Suddenly it all makes sense! ... But, wait a minute, then why did the conservative Washington Times take basically the same bogus line (at least in its lede)?...  I yield to no one in my paranoia about liberal agenda-pushing by reporters, but Edsall doesn't seem like that type. (He's no Nina Bernstein, or even Robert Pear.) My guess is he was just trying to pay the rent by milking a story out of the Public Citizen report. ....

Stunning stat of the week: More conservatives than liberals listen to NPR and watch PBS' "News Hour," according to a  Pew survey  covered in  the Washington Times  (second item). No wonder the conservatives are always so pissed off! .... Obvious methodological flaw: Few people self-describe themselves as "liberals" these days. Still ... How the Wash Times misreports the study: Jennifer Harper writes that "72 percent of conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh," when the survey  pretty clearly says that 72 percent of Limbaugh's listeners are conservatives, a less stunning stat. ....

Isn't Giuliani obviously a better candidate for Secretary of Homeland (new word, please!) Security than Tom Ridge? Even the NYT's  Joyce Purnick, who seems to viscerally loathe Giuliani, can't help but make the case for him despite her best efforts not to.  ...

More greenhouse gassing: Marc Ambinder of ABC's "The Note" has some good detail  on conservatives upset by Bush's global warming ambiguity. ... He suggests Bush may seek refuge by arguing humans are causing "greenhouse gases" to rise, but that this may not necessarily cause global warming. Very Clintonian! But it's hard to see how this gets Bush off the hook, since the report produced by his EPA, as Ambinder himself notes, "lays the blame for global warming (not just greenhouse gases) on human industrial production." ... P.S.: When the leader of a big liberal interest group makes a stink about a Democratic president caving in to the right, I instinctively suspect that the leader just wants to raise the profile of his interest group. So why don't I think the same thing about Myron Ebell, lobbyist for the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is making a big stink about Bush's "reversal" on global warming? The answer is probably that one should suspect Ebell of the same thing. ...

Improbable cause: A May 31 Jonathan Turley column  comes to the same conclusion Stuart Taylor later came to -- that Coleen Rowley was wrong and the FBI didn't have enough to meet the "probable cause" standard for searching Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop. Unlike Taylor, though, Turley thinks this outcome is just fine! ..

Recession from secession: Joel Kotkin, who seemed very sympathetic to L.A.'s various secession movements a month ago in the WSJ, has now (with Fred Siegel) come out for a judicious compromise  --  keep Los Angeles whole but install a borough system. ... Kotkin and Siegel are smart and sensible anlaysts, but their piece (which ran in the LAT) isn't close to convincing.  Instead, it more or less makes a case for the proposed secession of the San Fernando Valley and Hollywood. For example, Kotkin and Siegel say "Los Angeles' government has a reputation as one of the least efficient and most expensive in the nation" -- but "secession advocates have not made a convincing case for a new city other than to cite the failures of the old." Aren't the failures of the old city a pretty damn good reason for people in the Valley to want a new one? ... Meanwhile, their proposed borough system sounds like a nightmarish hodgepodge of ambiguous power lines. Citizens are supposed to look to their local "little city halls" for "basic services" -- but the most basic services (police, fire, and water) would still be "controlled from downtown."  A downtown council of borough presidents would also have "final zoning authority." Would any developer abandon his plans just because a borough council voted him down? Wouldn't he appeal to the downton council, rendering the borough's decision advisory? ... Kotkin and Siegel also admit that "New York's borough system has atrophied over the years" ... So why do Kotkin and Siegel actually oppose secession? It's hard to tell. There may be good arguments, involving the loss of tax revenues by the central city and the inevitable break-off of L.A.s West Side, which would leave a relatively poor rump consisting of downtown L.A. and it's poorer surroundings. But Kotkin and Siegel don't make these arguments. Indeed, Kotkin has criticized those who do.... Did the LAT's editors just assume that their readers think secession is a bad idea? ....