The Reform Regime-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 46

NRO ^ | 1/26/04 | John Samples

[Valin]

What's next for campaign finance?

More than a month has passed since the Supreme Court handed down its decision narrowing First Amendment protections for underwriting free speech. What now? The partisans of more restrictions on money in elections are trying to build momentum for their agenda. What should conservatives do?

Start by putting principle over politics.
Too many Republicans and conservatives were seduced into voting for McCain-Feingold by the political benefits of banning soft money. It's not hard to see why. The Democrats turned out to be pretty skilled at raising soft money; once it was banned, the Republicans' big hard-money advantage counted for more, and the Democrats started trying to undermine McCain-Feingold by creating so-called 527 groups to raise soft money from George Soros and others.

Many Republicans in Congress were sure that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional, but they voted for it anyway, assuming that the president or the Supreme Court would come to the defense of free speech. They wanted to on the right side of the "corruption" issue or to simply avoid being labeled the party of the rich. Sometimes saying "no" to the politics of the easy way out is a cost of having principles.
Similarly, the presidential politics of McCain-Feingold are pretty clear. President Bush is probably the best fundraiser ever of hard money. The soft-money ban did him no harm, but it did take away a potential primary challenge from Sen. John McCain and thus a possible threat to his reelection.

Like the Medicare drug benefit and the education bill, the president's signature on McCain-Feingold also took away a Democratic issue for 2004. And he figured conservatives would get over his failure to use the veto on McCain-Feingold.

If Republicans are going to fight against future restrictions on campaign finance, they must decide they are truly against them as a matter of principle and yes, of long-term partisan interest.

Truly commit to the struggle.
The McConnell v. FEC disaster can't be blamed entirely on political misjudgments. Ironically, enough conservatives did not spend enough money in their struggle to be free to spend money on elections. Consequently, the struggle for public opinion on this issue was one-sided.
The groups behind McCain-Feingold invested more than $70 million in getting their bill through Congress and the Court. Sympathetic foundations and wealthy individuals lavished money on lobbying groups, Washington think tanks and sympathetic academics to advance the case for restrictions.

I recall once talking to a promising young scholar who had just attended his first Washington conference on campaign finance. He remarked that the Pew Foundation "had bought up all the academic talent in town" on campaign finance. Indeed, they had.
The names of the people supported by Pew and other liberal foundations can now be found in the majority opinion in McConnell v. FEC. Their investment in lobbying and academic research paid off handsomely. They convinced five Supreme Court justices — three of whom were appointed by Republicans — to completely empower Congress to restrict political fundraising and electoral advertising.

Only a handful of think-tank researchers take a critical view of campaign-finance restrictions. No groups are dedicated full-time to fighting campaign-finance battles and keeping the news media updated on the case for liberty.
Until last month, conservatives seemed to believe that a Republican majority in Congress, along with a crew of talented election-law specialists, could stave off campaign-finance restrictions. That strategy failed. A new one is needed for the battles to come.

The groups that want to further restrict campaign finance still have a lot of money at their disposal, no shortage of political skill, and a limitless desire to limit the rights of Americans to spend money on politics.
If conservatives expect to stop future restrictions, they have to fight this battle all the time and not just in the courts and Congress. Unless conservatives invest in the struggle to defend the First Amendment, McCain-Feingold will be only the first of many laws that punish criticism of government.

John Samples is director of the Center for Representative Government at the Cato Institute.

[Valin]

Yesterdays thread
Dissecting the Principles Underlying Campaign Finance Reform

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1064855/posts?page=1



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



Update
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.

Update 2
QUICK PROGRESS REPORT, ANSWERING A SUPPORTER'S QUESTION:
We have about 15% of the needed 1,000 sign-ups.

Spread the word, direct folks to the front page link on my website.

Google-bomb the phrase "anti-CFR" directing readers to that page and link. (We're already #2 and #4 on Google.)

Target date is now August, since the NC primary looks to be put back to September. (Remember, the ad isn't illegal until the 29th day before the election.)


Cordially,

John / Billybob


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

[The_Eaglet]

This is a good article. The burden of proof is on the Republican Party leadership as to whether Constitutional fidelity is more important to them than political power grabs.

[Eastbound]

"Like the Medicare drug benefit and the education bill, the president's signature on McCain-Feingold also took away a Democratic issue for 2004."

Neat trick. Let's hope the democrats run out of issues before the republicans destroy what's left of its principles.

[DustyMoment]

"Too many Republicans and conservatives were seduced into voting for McCain-Feingold by the political benefits of banning soft money."

First clue to when we need to take arms against prospective legislation - when politicians CLAIM that they want to LIMIT their access to a source of campaign funds. There is no politician alive that wants to limit access to a source of campaign funding.

But, the issue goes well beyond just the superficial funding issue. If we are truly going to resolve the unConstitutional aspects of CFR AND resolve the issue of campaign finance reform, I believe that the answer lies in limiting Crogressional sessions; NOT Congressional terms. If we limit Congressional sessions to one 6 month term once every other year, we can do much to take the influence of money out of politics. After the 6 month Congressional session ends, the politicians go home to a regular job. I think this will go a long way to curb many of the ills currently affecting our political system and our system of government. When Congress is in session, it is like giving children the keys to the candy store. If we limit the length of Congressional sessions, we limit the damage these people can do.

[Valin]

I believe that the answer lies in limiting Crogressional sessions

Not a bad idea. I know here in Mn. we do.


Back later tonight.

[King Black Robe]

Exactly.

[Valin]

Consequently, the struggle for public opinion on this issue was one-sided.

Way to many people just don't see how this directly affects their lives.

[The_Eaglet]

Forward Link:

Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 47