Campaign Finance Regulation-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 40

CATO Institute ^ | 9/13/95 | Bradley A. Smith

[Valin]

Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

Efforts to limit political contributions and spending are extremely popular. Yet there is no serious evidence that campaign finance regulation has achieved or will achieve its goals of reducing the influence of money, opening up the political system, and lowering the cost of campaigns. Indeed, since the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act, spending has risen sharply, the number of political action committees and the amount of PAC spending are up, and incumbents have increased both their reelection rate and the rate at which they outspend their challengers.

Efforts to limit contributions and spending have been based on faulty assumptions. Although it is often said that we spend too much on political campaigns, total spending for candidates for all offices is less than $10 per eligible voter every two years. Money is of much greater value to challengers than to incumbents, so higher spending opens up the political system to new people and ideas. Contrary to the assumption that large contributions are undemocratic is the reality that most challenges to the status quo and most working-class political movements have been financed by wealthy donors.

Our current campaign finance regulations favor incumbents, stifle grassroots activity, distort and constrict political debate, and infringe on traditional First Amendment freedoms. There is little reason to believe that still more regulation and public funding will yield positive results.

The framers of the Bill of Rights provided for the First Amendment to keep the government from attempting to limit political debate and criticism. We should recognize the wisdom of that decision and return to the system of campaign "regulation" that the Founders intended: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."

Bradley A. Smith is an assistant professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio.

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Campaign finance initiative fails to make ballot
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1060838/posts



Note: If you would like to be on/off this Campaign Finance Reform list please let me know

[Valin]

HOORAY For John!

Hugh & Series, Critical & Pulled by JimRob
Special to FreeRepublic | 17 December 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

This is nothing like the usual whine by someone whose post was pulled. JimRob pulled my previous thread for a good reason. "If direct fund-raising were permitted on FR, it would soon be wall-to-wall fund-raising."

So, let's start again correctly. This is about civil disobedience to support the First Amendment and challenge the TERRIBLE CFR decision of the Supreme Court to uphold a terrible law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush.

All who are interested in an in-your-face challenge to the 30- and 60-day ad ban in the Campaign Finance "Reform" Act, please join in. The pattern is this: I'm looking for at least 1,000 people to help the effort. I will run the ad, and risk fines or jail time to make it work -- AND get national support.

But there should be NO mentions of money in this thread, and not in Freepmail either. This is JimRob's electronic home, and we should all abide his concerns.

Put your comments here. Click on the link above, and send me your e-mail addresses. I will get back to you by regular e-mail with the practical details.

This CAN be done. This SHOULD be done. But it MUST be done in accord with JimRob's guidelines.


Fair enough?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042394/posts

Note if you are interested in more on this please contact myself or Congressman Billybob

[The_Eaglet]

Bump for later review

[joesnuffy]

was CFR ever about reforming campaign finance? Its the encumbant protection bill...and the shut up the NRA and other pro freedom groups from spilling the beans on candidates at the 11th hour when most citizens make up their minds about who they will pull the lever for

[The_Eaglet]

The Cato Institute provides a more accurate description of the bill than the working title: Campaign Finance Regulation.

[DustyMoment]

Great question. IMO, CFR was always about protecting the incumbents and stifling political debate and political competition.

That's why McCain is at the heart of CFR - he HATES competition and he HATES to lose.

Ask yourself this question: Why would ANY politician vote to support something that was intended to LIMIT their access to campaign contributions?

Doesn't make sense in that context does it?

[Valin]

was CFR ever about reforming campaign finance?

I'd say no. It was always about control(at least for the leaders of the movement). We can't have people saying anything they want about politicians, that could lead too...welll we don't want to go down that road.

It's my opinion that where this is heading is the complete federalization(if there is such a word) of ALL elections.

Fortunatly there are those right across the political spectrum that see this as a very bad idea. weather it can be killed, I don't know. But this I do know we have to try.

[Congressman Billybob]

What amazes, and pleases, me, my friend, is that every day you can find cogent and useful analyses on the subject of Campaign Finance "Reform." It may not be frontpage, and is certainly not above the fold. However, it is still there in the press, and you keep it alive here on FR.

I've already tested the idea of my in-your-face challenge ads, first in the print media and then deliberately illegal on TV, with certain editors I have a long relationship with. I could trust these two gentlemen, one in the print media and the other in the broadcast media, with a "heads up" on what I am planning. Both said they wanted to know, in advance, when I am about to do this.

The bottom line is clear. If I am willing to put my neck on the line, with the possibilities of a fine and jail time, THAT effort will put CFR back on the front page in all media. And that is part of the point. There's not much value of going in-your-face against the enemies of the First Amendment unless the press takes up the story and spreads the word. It is now clear they will do exactly that.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Valin]

Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

I'm starting to get a little tired of people who sit around and complain (about whatever) but won't try and do something about it.

[Eastbound]

Bttt!

[Rensselaer]

Smith is now a member of the Federal Election Commission.

[Rensselaer]

Smith is now a member of the Federal Election Commission.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:
“Sham”paign Finance Reform, Just Another Dirty Trick-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 41