Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 05/28/2006 12:58:07 PM PDT by Celtjew Libertarian
Why don’t liberals understand the freedom-crushing nature of campaign finance reform?
How come it is easy for liberals to see the First Amendment interest in other overheated free speech issues, such as reporting on the classified operations of the National Security Agency or displaying Robert Mapplethorpe nudes, but when it comes to political discourse during an election season, they’re all for government restraints?
This is the same question that famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams raises in his autobiographical book Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment. In one chapter, Abrams recounts a speech he gave to a Unitarian church congregation in New York City in 2000. The audience was very friendly toward his discussion of the Pentagon Papers case and the Brooklyn Museum case in which Abrams defended the museum after then-New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sought to cut its funding. The mayor had been deeply offended by a Nigerian artist’s use of elephant dung in a painting of the Virgin Mary that the museum exhibited.
But when Abrams said that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform measure would likely put unconstitutional limits on political activity and promote censorship of political speech, his audience audibly objected.
Abrams and I are in the same tiny club. We believe in freedom for flag burners, Mapplethorpe and the Republican Party and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. We lose most of our liberal allies halfway through the list.
(Excerpt) Read more at sptimes.com ...
ping
Nothing will change in this country until ALL campaign financing is outlawed...
The proper of use of gov't. in campaigns, IMHO, would be to provide free access to television broadcast for ALL those running for office, effecting eliminating ALL need for campaign contributions and creating a level playing field.
Take away the money and you'll eliminate the corruption and ensure people seek office to serve their country rather than get rich & powerful...
Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
Far better would be to lift all restrictions on money, but demand complete transparency: No anonymous donations and donor lists published and part of the public record.
While I do have some sympathy for your point of view, I've got to say that I don't like the idea of influence going to the highest bidder. If there are no limits, that's exactly what you wind up with.
Doing that would change things all right. It would put the liberal media in 100% control of the government. While that would certainly be a change, I can't see any reason to regard it as a good one.
Person #1: Hey, that gold sure is fine.Perhaps a bit too long, but I think it gets the point across.Person #2: Yup. That sure is some [GONG!]
#1: What was that?
#2: That's the McCain-[GONG!] alert. It ensures compliance with the McCain-[GONG!] rules that forbid us from talking about politicians or candidates seeking election, like Senator [GONG!].
#1: Huh?
#2: Well, Senator [GONG!] realized that if people knew what politicians were up to, they might not re-elect them. So he helped write the McCain-[GONG!] Act to help politicians keep people in the dark.
#1: But doesn't that contradict the First Amendment?
#2: Yeah, but [GONG!] doesn't care. He'd rather be re-elected than respect the Constitution he swore to uphold.
#1: That's pretty crummy. When does he face election?
#2: On November (?). I hope you'll join me in voting against him. #1: Sure will. Oh, and as I said, that gold sure is fine.
Maybe I’m not articulate enough or motivated enough to run for public office. Instead I send money to the candidate who will best express my point of view. I am underwriting and supporting a surrogate for my own political speech — just as people do when they send money to groups like the Sierra Club. Any government limit placed on my ability to fund a candidate’s communications is an infringement on my First Amendment freedom.
Shocker this AM///Wasn't it? Resident Atheist/Socialist Robyn Blumner "sees the light" finally..on something...
McCain/Feingold....McCain/Kennedy.....McCain--OUT the Door!
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Politics without money By Paul Jacob May 28, 2006
If everybody says it, it must be true, right?
Money in politics is bad. Capital-B, Capital-A, Capital-D, BAD!
The judgment can be stated above the level of a high-school cheer, of course. Here's Common Cause's summary:
The dominating influence of wealthy special interests in the funding of campaigns has eroded public trust in our political system and discouraged political participation. In a system that gives undue access to lawmakers and influence on legislation to those who contribute large amounts to campaigns, most citizens believe their voice is not being heard. Why, to begin with, is there money in politics?
Two reasons: we have something like a democracy, and our government meddles in nearly everything.
So what to do?
We could just limit the purview of government, and the money issue would peter out — after all, "paying Paul" would no longer be policy. If we brought back constitutional limits, and added some new ones, then there'd be scant incentive to invest in politicians to . . . do things they really shouldn't be doing anyway.
But a lot of people want anything but the Constitution, so that idea gets nixed. Politicians like the power that comes from spending gobs of other people's money, and many interest groups as well as citizens welcome being bought.
That's why politicians tend to prefer their own solution: socialized elections.
They refer to it as "publicly funded elections," though it would be more accurate to use such phrases as "government-funded" or "taxpayer-funded." They call it "clean money," as if taking money from taxpayers and doling it out to certain politicians is next to godliness. But whatever you call it, the idea is clear: make everybody pay for the campaigns of certain approved candidates. All for one, one for all — except that in practice it means, "all for a few, a few for themselves."
It could work, sorta. Socialism can't run a whole consumer-oriented economy (can you say "stagnation"? can you mind your queues?), but socialism can run certain things, like a singular government enterprise. Making everybody pay for one project, and having that project run according to strict rules, or the agreed goals of a few people . . . hey, it might work. Armies run along non-market lines. Why can't we run an election like we run an army?
Well, even politicians have a common interest in winning wars, as do all citizens. As for winning elections, there are a myriad of fiercely competing interests. Because some in the public understand this dynamic, politicians will no doubt argue that money would have to be even more tightly controlled. Some bureau, or agency, or both (or a dozen) would have to set up finding for each election, and the only money that could be spent on that election would be the money disbursed by the government with regulations predetermined by incumbent politicians.
Simple
And here's an even simpler system: If you really want to take money out of politics, just stop holding elections. Period. If there were no elections, there'd be no money in politics, other than the paying of representatives. Each current representative could appoint his or her successor, and you could regulate the politicians' financial concerns all you (or they) like . . . and that way money would no longer be a problem.
You see, the easiest way to take money out of politics is to take democracy out of politics.
In a democracy, people need ways to influence other people, and spending money advertising each case is one of those ways. It's integral. If "money and politics" were your only concern, then taking the democracy out of the representational system would work just dandy.
And after all, it's not as if the regulatory/redistributionist state (the "welfare state") requires democracy. It's a very old idea. You could say it was invented, in ancient times, by the Roman Empire, with its bread and circuses. A socialized retirement system was invented, in modern times, by Otto von Bismarck. It's easier to direct without hordes of interests "having a lawful say."
So, if you really want "money out of politics," you have two choices: Take politics out of money, by limiting government power to meddle in every aspect of society; or take democracy out of government.
Do you detect a reductio ad absurdum? Maybe. But this solution is merely a more honest option than the politicians' preferred plan.
After all, socialized elections are undemocratic, too, undemocratic in a very practical sense. They would be so regulated as to channel dissent. It would be even harder for upstarts and challengers truly to challenge incumbents. Every step since Watergate to regulate elections has increased the power of incumbency. We have a startlingly high incumbency success rate now. That would likely increase in socialized elections. Socialized elections amount to a mere halfway measure to getting democracy out of politics.
Which is perhaps why the "old timers" in politics are now coming out for it. It would so play into their hands.
It would lead to democracy precisely as they like it: democracy without citizen control, democracy in name only. Copyright © 2006 Paul Jacob
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
So sorry, did you see something in what I said that wasn't there?
I MOST DEFINATELY would not suggest ANY media anywhere within 100 miles of legally controlled "free access to television broadcast", sorry you didn't understand that...
+1
Funny how people can't see this simple truth...
So sorry, but I think given the past 100 years or so of US History has proven that BIG $$$ propaganda absolutely false - Gov't. by the BIGGEST bidder grants democracy only to those that can afford it.
We've ended-up with political gold-diggers that could care less about "serving" the bulk of the USA's interest and well-being...
Would you do away with the news media entirely?
If two candidates have "equal time", but one gets the bonus of having news media support in addition to their "official" time, that support will be a major bonus.
Further, you need to consider that a lot of important political material comes from people other than candidates. Where would Swift Boat Vets for Truth fit in your scheme of things?
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.