2 resultados para Metropolitan Federal Savings and Loan Bank (Southfield, Mich.)
em Digital Archives@Colby
Resumo:
In the area of campaign financing in federal elections, one of the most controversial issues is that of soft money. Soft money refers to those funds raised by the national party organizations for use on various grassroots and party-building activities. but which are not subject to the restraints of federal campaign finance law. Critics contend that these party-building activitie, such as generic television advertising, voter registration and get-out-the vote drives, provide ancillary benefits to federal candidates and should, therefore, be subject to federal contribution and expenditure limits. Critics further argue that because these funds are not subject to federal law and do benefit federal candidates, the national parties raise monies in amounts and from sources, such as corporations and unions, that are prohibited under federal law. Efforts to gain a better understanding of soft money have been hampered by a lack of data, as the national parties were not required to disclose their soft money receipts and transactions until 1991. The purpose of this study is to analyze data recently made available in an attempt to add the import of empirical evidence to the debate over soft money. The nature, size and timing of soft money contributions are investigated and national party soft money disbursements are examined. The findings suggest that any attempts to reform the soft money system must first consider its compensatory benefits. Most prominently, this includes the extent to which soft money has promoted the resurgence of the national party organizations in the context of election politics.
Resumo:
“Conservation Lands” include both public and private lands that are devoted to the protection of wildlife and natural resources. “Listed Species” include federally and state endangered and threatened animals that are in danger of extermination in the state of Maine. The purpose of this study is to determine how well conservation lands are protecting the habitats of listed species. GAP data was used for 13 terrestrial vertebrate species indicating the presence or absence of suitable habitats. This data was compiled in GIS, generating a layer showing the number of listed species an area is suitable for. The areas that were suitable for at least one habitat were compared to answer three questions: (1) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on protected lands and lands that are not protected? (2) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on public lands managed by the state and the federal government and private land? (3) Is there is a difference between the presence and absence of listed species on lands protected under easements and lands that are protected fee simple? We found significant differences between all three categories. Conservation lands, private lands, and lands held under easement protect the habitat of listed species most effectively. We believe that this is due to the large number of private land trusts in the state of Maine and the effective management strategies of state lands.