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 ...
That's why there has to be transparancy: So the voter can see who the candidate is really representing.
So rather than having political speech controlled by who can pay for it, you end up with political speech controlled by government commission. Which still has potential for corruption.
Personally, I put more trust in a system where campaign speech is paid for by many sources, rather than one where campaign speech is controlled by one source.
She's been fairly good about supporting rights, as she sees them, even when it's to the advantage of those she disagrees with. I don't think she's always right (though I probably think so more often than you do), but I think she strives to be honest.
Seesh, what a bunch of big government socialists on FR this weekend.
Those kind of feelings are more fitting at DU
Go back home and leave us partiots alone.
I think Rush said it best:
Well, there was that, and then McCain lost it about these 527s. MoveOn.org, he said, [McCain impression:] "Look, my son – my stupid 15-year-old son – even he would say it's partisan politics and as such, it's illegal. What do we have to do here, huh? Huh?" Now, that was in testimony before the Senate. I'm sitting there saying, "I wonder how many people are hearing this?" His law, his McCain-Feingold law says that these 527s are illegal because they're engaging in partisan politics.
My friends, what has happened to us? We have allowed this silly attack on the First Amendment, McCain-Feingold. President signed it, don't know why. Supreme Court found it constitutional, can't understand it, and now this? I mean, there's more money in politics than ever, and more of it by definition of law is illegal than ever! This McCain-Feingold law is an absolute joke. There is more money than ever and it's all under the table now and it's not under control of the parties. It's in control of these wackos like George Soros.
So everybody says, "How could this have happened?" [McCain impression:] "We put that loophole in there but we didn't think anybody would see it. You have to have loopholes so you can go back with new legislation to be a king again to close it!" Well, they saw the loophole, senator, and they're exploiting it with partisan politics. (Laughing) "That's right! That's right! Partisan politics, and it stinks. We said you can't do that and we're going to stop it, you hear me?" Okay, so it was a... (Laughing) What McCain-Feingold wanted to do, it did just the opposite! It was designed to take money out of politics. Instead of taking the money out, McCain-Feingold is sucking in more money than at any time in history and by definition, most of it's illegal. Thank you, senator!
As a BIG proponent of the liberties espoused first in the Declaration of Independence and then the USCON & BORs, what I suggest is leave the media talking heads alone to anal-ize politics as usual, just make it a BIG no-no for politicos that hold office from dog catcher to POTUS to receive ANYTHING from ANY source other than the office they occupy.
Country first and foremost, or not at all.
In fact, any media appearance by candidates should accommodate ALL or NONE, and those that violate cross that line would be prosecuted under the same penalties as traitors.
I know, I can always dream cause it'll never happen in my lifetime, but rest assured it WILL happen one day if the humanrace survives that long ;-)
I could sling some trash your way, as you've earned it, but I'm not going to stoop ad hominems that would equal yours...
FWIW, I despise wealth redistribution and have probably been raped by the IRS of $$$ on an annual basis that is in FAR excess of what you gross - My only reason for my believes is that I have seen the politicians inside the beltway stray FAR from the vision of the Founding Fathers, and I see no other way to restore the gov't. to serving We The People, rather than viewing We The People as a resource to be exploited.
Will the government then reimburse the TV networks and the local stations for lost revenue? Or should the government just outright nationalize the media?
Besides, ads for "ALL" those running for office would fill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for months without a repeat! Would YOU watch that?
"Nothing will change in this country until ALL campaign financing is outlawed..."
I'll agree with this only when congressmen and Senators are limited constitutionally to 1 term of office and never allowed to run for any other office ever again.
Good to see someone advocating free broadcasts for the Communist candidate, the Sunni candidate, the Shiite candidate, the Social Democrat candidate, the Democratic Socialist candidate, the Christian Socialist candidate, the Christian Democrat candidate, the IWW candidate, the Socialist Labor candidate, the Socialist Workers candidate, the Peoples Movement for the Liberation of Palestine candidate, the Shining Path candidate, the NAMBLA candidate, and others.
That is also a solution, ironically though just as remote in its chance of happening in the near future...
If one is able to convince the election board that they are a valid candidate via legally verified petition for candidacy (1%+ of the represented electorate), which would be logical to exclude nutjobs, then who are you or I to tell them they are unqualified to run?
Presently we have a two-party ol' boyz club excluding anyone that disagrees with them, would you say that is more "American"?
I didn't say they were unqualified to run. Who pays for 45 Presidential TV campaigns or so? Taxes? Some minor European parties live on the campaign expenses (as do some in the US.)
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.