Posted on 02/08/2007 4:10:32 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Romney’s about-face on campaign funding
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who strongly criticized campaign-finance regulations in a private meeting with House conservatives last week, once touted dramatic restructuring measures such as taxing political contributions and placing spending limits on federal campaigns.
Romney’s past positions on campaign-finance regulation, anathema to many social conservatives who believe such rules place unconstitutional limits on free speech, could complicate his ongoing efforts to court conservative leaders.
Romney already has had to explain his past support for abortion rights, another volatile issue among conservatives. At a private meeting with conservative House Republicans in Baltimore Friday, Romney devoted much of his time to explaining how his stance on abortion has evolved, said a conservative who attended.
While several Republicans who attended the Republican Study Committee (RSC) retreat greeted Romney’s remarks on abortion with skepticism, his condemnation of changes to campaign-finance rules struck a positive chord with the entire audience. Romney specifically criticized the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act sponsored by his rival for the GOP presidential nomination, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
“Referring to the bill, [Romney] called it ‘one of the worst things in my lifetime,’” one conservative Republican said. “The place erupted. That was by far the biggest applause line.”
Romney also has criticized McCain on campaign finance while stumping in South Carolina, where President Bush turned the tide against McCain in the 2000 GOP presidential primary.
A South Carolina-based publication, The State, recently reported that Romney highlighted McCain’s support of campaign regulations in order to draw a contrast with his rival.
“That’s a terrible piece of legislation,” Romney said, according to the report. “It hasn’t taken the money out of politics … [But] it has hurt my party.”
A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.
A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).
McCain and his allies on campaign finance included similar proposals in the first campaign-finance reform package they introduced in Congress in 1995, said Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, who was at the center of the fight to pass the changes. McCain and his allies later dropped the spending limits and PAC ban because they proved to be too controversial, she said.
During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.
“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”
Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.
“He believes there ought to be transparency and disclosure in a way so the public knows who’s raising money and who’s contributing money,” said Madden. “Right now I can say we make every effort that the campaign adheres to the disclosure and transparency requirements of campaign finance law now; 1994 was 15 years ago.”
Madden reiterated Romney’s belief that the 2002 campaign law hindered public participation.
Public-financed elections are an idea that Democrats in the Senate and House are planning to push this Congress; the idea is strongly opposed by conservative leaders.
Tom McClusky, the vice president of government affairs for the Family Research Council, an influential Washington-based grassroots advocacy organization representing evangelical Christians, said public financing of elections would distance lawmakers from voters.
“For groups like ours that work directly with the grass roots, it hurts us because the distance [to lawmakers] grows larger and larger,” said McClusky, who argued that if legislators did not have to make fundraising appeals, they “would no longer have to be worried that they’re answerable to their constituents.”
McClusky said he did not know whether Romney since had shifted his stance.
“Of course, this was Mitt Romney in 2002. Who knows? He might have changed his mind on that,” he said. “He always seems to want to come back to the table.”
Jeff Mazzella, the president of the Center for Individual Freedom, another conservative advocacy group, has published harsh criticisms of McCain because of his support for various campaign regulations. He was surprised to hear of Romney’s past positions.
“I was not familiar [with] Romney’s positions referenced in the articles you stated,” Mazzella said in an interview. “We’re adamantly opposed to the idea of taxing campaign donations, or eliminating PACs or any abridgement of the people’s right to assemble or speak.”
It remains to be seen, however, whether Romney will face as much skepticism on campaign finance as he has on abortion.
One House conservative who met with him last week noted disapprovingly that Romney freely admitted that he has been firmly opposed to abortion rights for only two and a half years. He was also unenthusiastic about what he called Romney’s cumbersome explanation.
“He spent a significant portion of his speech trying to convince members that he was pro-life now,” he said. “But on an issue like that is, it shouldn’t take a lot of time to say, ‘I’m pro-life.’
“The fact that it took paragraphs and paragraphs of explanation, and never had a hard-and-fast ‘I’m 100 percent pro-life from conception to natural death’” was disconcerting, the House Republican said.
In this case, Romney's proposals predated McCain's attack on the First Amendment known as "McCain-Feingold," and perhaps were part of the inspiration for it. It was too radical even for McCain, though.
ping...
That's much better than starting right and going left, like McCain, or starting left and staying left like Giuliani.
Well, when Mitt has proven his mettle for a couple of decades like Reagan, have him come talk to us.
Absolutely.
“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”
Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.
Hey, Mitt. It may be "other people's money," but they are covered under the First Amendment, too. You might try reading it some time soon.
This guy's a real piece of work.
But...but..but... He was actually against it, before he was for it, before he was against it.
We can trust him to be a conservative. (/sarc)
Is this guy just like John Kerry, or what? Is there anything he has been consistant about.
If Mitt flips consistently to the Right, he's not a flop in my view. :-)
How many posts have I read on the FR that state that Mitt was always Anti-Abortion? Now he has a change of heart 2 1/2 years ago? This guy pure snake oil.
BTTT
Yep. By these articles you can see some people are afraid of him and really reaching for something - anything they can find. Like a 180 on a few issues will matter. Very few politicians have zero 180's.
You forget the sarcasm tag, right?
I am not shocked. A politician acting like a politician. And one that changes over 12+ years (from the left to the right). But, to respond to all of his criticisms, I come back to same point: What did he do when was in elected office? Did he sign into law campaign finance law? The answer is no.
What's the limit? This guy is flipping on every issue that matters, and only when he started to run for President.
That sentence would cover for anyone on anything.
Hey EV....who is your candidate?
Myself, I favor public financing of campaigns, in the sense that if one candidate goes over a limit, the other candidate gets 150% of the excess from the government. It is the only thing that will ever work.
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.