Posted on 04/23/2015 5:57:21 PM PDT by Chris Shugart Uncommon Sense
Hillary Clinton has been calling for sweeping changes in the way that private citizens choose to get involved in the political process. Yes, I know, the term is “campaign finance reform.” She went so far as to say that she’d be willing to support a Constitutional amendment to “reform” the way voters spend their money in political campaigns. She’s not the only Democrat who feels this way.
Their concerns are real. How can a Democrat candidate expect to run an effective campaign when voters have the power to determine the outcome? Hillary and others on the Left get especially nervous when conservatives spend their own money to promote their own candidates. What’s a liberal to do? Well, Democrats have the answer: Put restrictions on the voters. In their eyes, campaigns are unfair because they favor those who contribute money.
There’s a twisted line of reasoning behind this support for campaign finance reform that borders on the totalitarian. Progressives view the average voter as insufficiently informed and knowledgeable to make correct decisions. And they believe that ordinary Americans are easily swayed by political ads that cloud their judgement and cause them to act against their own best interests.
It’s no exaggeration that liberals view average citizens as a liability to the voting process. Following the 2004 re-election of George Bush, Democrats and liberal media pundits explained the results by blaming voters who didn’t really know what they were voting for. ABC News correspondent Carole Simpson offered the simple possibility that the electorate was stupid. She was hardly alone in that unscientific evaluation. The London Daily Mirror asked in a headline, "How can 59,054,087 people be so dumb?" In an article titled, The Unteachable Ignorance of the Red States, novelist and Slate.com contributor, Jane Smiley, offers this warped perspective: "Ignorance and bloodlust have a long tradition in the United States, especially in the red states.”
Campaign finance reform creates an absurd paradox. By trying to eliminate the power that money supposedly gives politicians, we’re going to give them more legislative power to regulate the process. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house. That would be like putting a criminal defendant in charge of the prosecution. You show me a politician who advocates campaign finance reform and I’ll show you a politician who sees some political advantage in it.
There’s a simple solution to eliminating the corruption that large amounts of campaign money appears to bring to the political process. Don’t vote for candidates you believe are beholden to their big money donors. Granted, such simplicity is counter-intuitive to the progressive mind. In their world, politicians are bought and sold right under the noses of the American public who are getting bamboozled by political chicanery of which they’re unaware.
The most realistic way to fight big money is with big money of our own. Of course, that creates a dangerously level playing field that allows anyone to get in the game—something Democrats would prefer to prevent through restrictive legislation. Every dictator in history has understood this problem, and has tried to implement the same solution: Leave the citizens out of the political process. When the electorate starts getting labeled the problem rather than the politician running for office, we’re setting the stage for a one-party tyranny.
Do that during the 2nd American Republic. The current one is dead and cannot be resuscitated.
BWAHAHAHAHA! We already have that.
FMCDH(BITS)
Setting the staage for a one party tyranny? We already have one party governance.
Try talking to your congressho without writing a large check first. What the article conveniently ignores is that the people that have the heaviest money spend it extravagantly on candy dates from BOTH parties.
Heads they win, tails they win.
Representative government loses.
Er, you want political finance reform? Let's start with the public debt, taxation, and the way entities can buy favor (e.g. the story of GE paying no taxes a while back) — here's two Constitutional Amendments that would do it:
| Tax Reform Amendment | Fiscal Responsibility Amendment |
|---|---|
| Section I No tax, fee, fine, or judgement —federal, State, or subdivision of either— shall ever be withheld from any wage. Section II No property shall be seized for failure to pay taxes until after conviction in a jury trial; the right of the jury to nullify (and thereby forgive) this debt shall never be questioned or denied. Section III The second amendment is hereby recognized as restricting the power of taxation, both federal and state, therefore no tax (or fee, or fine) shall be laid upon munitions or the sale thereof. Section IV The seventh amendment is also hereby recognized, and nothing in this amendment shall restrict the right of a citizen to seek civil redress. Section V No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever exceed 10%. Section VI No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction. Section VII No retrospective, retroactive, or ex post facto tax, fee, or fine shall ever be valid; nor shall the Congress delegate the creation of any tax, fee, or fine in any way; nor shall Congress give any credit, exemption, or deduction to any person, class of persons, or corporation whatsoever. Section VIII No federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent shall ever be exempt from any tax, fine, or fee by virtue of their position. Section IX Any federal employee, representative, senator, judge, justice or agent abridging, attempting to abridge, or otherwise circumventing this amendment shall, upon conviction, be evicted from office and all retirement benefits forfeit. |
Section I The power of Congress to regulate the value of money is hereby rescinded; the unit of money of the United States is the Dollar. Section II The value of the Dollar shall be one fifteen-hundredth avoirdupois ounce of gold of which impurities do not exceed one part per thousand. Section III To guard against Congress using its authority over weights and measures to bypass Section I, the ounce in Section II is approximately 28.3495 grams (SI). Section IV The Secretary of the Treasury shall annually report the gold physically in its possession; this report shall be publicly available. Any five states may commission a third party audit to confirm this report at their own expense. Section V The power of the Congress to assume debt is hereby restricted: the congress shall assume no debt that shall cause the total obligations of the United States to exceed one hundred ten percent of the amount last reported by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section VI Any government agent, officer, judge, justice, employee, representative, or congressman causing gold, money, or real estate to be confiscated from a citizen shall be tried for theft and upon conviction shall: a. be removed from office (and fired, if an employee), b. forfeit all pension and retirement benefits, c. pay all legal costs, and d. restore to the bereaved twice the amount in controversy. Section VII The federal government shall assume no obligation lacking funding, neither shall it lay such obligation on any of the several States, any subdivision thereof, or any place under the jurisdiction of the United States. All unfunded liabilities heretofore assumed by the United States are void. Section VIII The federal government shall make all payments to its employees or the several states in physical gold. Misappropriation, malfeasance and/or misfeasance of funds shall be considered confiscation and theft. |
You're right; this is one reason I think we need an Article V convention.
voting wont matter after nov 2016, commies rushing to sign up millions of scumbags
http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/23/the-white-house-and-soros-backed-open-borders-group-strategize-about-bribing-immigrants-to-naturalize-before-2016/
For example, if you have to join a union to be a truck driver, and then the union requires you to pay dues, and then uses a large portion of those dues to support political campaigns, invariably for the left....your choice is to fund Democrats or find an entirely different line of work...and lo and behold the Democrats usually favor unionizing all forms of work...hmmmm.
/johnny
What an excellent piece of writing. Too bad it appears most missed it. I’m sharing it on FB and Twitter....
Sorry, I'm just not that confident.
- they would be correct
"liberals view average citizens as a liability to the voting process"
this would also be correct
"pundits explained the results by blaming voters who didn’t really know what they were voting for"
- and a large portion of them really don't have any clue
"Carole Simpson offered the simple possibility that the electorate was stupid"
- yup, I'd say right around half of them
Quite frankly, the only solution is to put a max cap on how much money can be spent. Everything else has to be returned to the donors... and no "doa, It was convenient I'm sorry" BS either. Break the rules, forfeit and do 10 years mandatory. And i'm not talking some low-level stooge, the candidate does the time. They'd keep their stink straight then, I guarantee it.
No income tax levied by the federal government, the several States, or any subdivision of either shall ever apply varying rates to those in its jurisdiction.
If this means levels of government gets to tax up to 10% each, then the result may well be more layers. Conversely if this means that 10% is the combined limit, you need to have some kind of collaboration procedure between the government levels. For example, say local government tax is at 1%, state is at 2% and the fed is at 7%. Then the fed wants to raise it to 9%...what happens? Are they stuck unless they convince each state or each local government to make an adjustment? Or perhaps the states must then lower theirs to 1% and then the local governments must eliminate theirs altogether?
opps...meant the 10% one
By missed it, I mean not only didn’t read it, but also missed its actual point.
I have no clue what will follow. I do know for certain the the First American Republic is indeed dead.
Considering the percentage of that population that has changed from producer to looter, I see little hope that there will be a second.
I diligently practice my own brand of campaign finance reform. I don’t contribute money to politicians.
We can’t allow people to fund the expression of “unapproved” viewpoints.
Heads they win, tails they win.
I have long advocated a cure for that problem. All political donations should be ANONYMOUS. A politician can't sell influence if he doesn't know who is buying. To limit the dollar amount of donations would limit the right of constituents to back the candidate of their choice, IOW, limit their FREEDOM. So if an individual or a business believes that the policies of a particular candidate will benefit them, they should be able to fund them as they please. As I said, FREEDOM.
A benefit of this is that politicians will have to make their positions on multiple issues known, in order to encourage donations from like-thinking folks. But since they won't know who gave or didn't give, they won't be able to make moves that specifically favor a business or individual(s).
Finally, make it a felony for the donor to disclose or the recipient to attempt to learn who gave what. Some will try to cheat, but a few frogmarched off in cuffs will give pause to those considering it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.