Posted on 12/16/2014 6:54:55 AM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion
Amid America’s current distemper, there’s no easier target than “big money” in politics. So it’s no surprise that Senator Elizabeth Warren and liberals would denounce the omnibus spending bill’s provision increasing the amount that an individual can give to the political parties. What is surprising is that some on the right have joined this misguided outrage.
. . . conservatives have long led the fight against arbitrary limits on money in politics, not least because such restrictions are usually designed by incumbents to help incumbents. Yet all of a sudden some on the right are treating the deregulation of money in politics as a conspiracy against grass-roots conservatives.
As our friend Rush Limbaugh put it last week the new amounts are a “Republican establishment ploy” designed to pour “limitless” money into party organizations that will “defeat the tea party.”
[But] . . . History is littered with big-money donors who blew small fortunes on candidates who were rejected by voters.
. . . Surely the tea party right understands that liberals support donation limits precisely because they tend to empower . . . newspapers and TV networks.
free speech and political competition . . . require ample sums of money for election campaigns
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Money may not be “speech,” but it sure is sine qua non for “press.” Even our own FReepathons attest to that.
The reality is that Establishment Journalism is exempted from McCain-Feingold, for the simple reason that it would be too obviously unconstitutional - not to mention antithetical to the interests of liberal politicians - to do otherwise. But if, as is obviously the case, the money “the MSM” spends on political advocacy cannot be regulated, neither should the money the poor man puts into his soap box be regulated. At all.
Ping.
The solution is not to get business out of government. That’s quite impossible as long as government makes decisions that spell the difference between profitability and bankruptcy for individual firms.
The solution is to get government out of business. If government didn’t wield such enormous power over business and have the ability to hand out such goodies, corruption would diminish.
I’ve always thought it odd that the corruption is always portrayed as business bribing government, whereas to me it looks at least as much like government extorting business.
‘History is littered with big-money donors who blew small fortunes on candidates who were rejected by voters.”
Few remember John Connally nowadays. At least he spent his own money.
Chief Red Squaw may have populist appeal (mostly among OWS type radicals) but there is nothing remotely conservative about her.
People should have the right to contribute as much as they want to political parties or any other organization of their choosing.
Dodd-Frankenstein is a perfect abomination and should be repealed in its entirety.
we’ll see how lieawatha feels when she gets the democrat nomination and george soros waddles up with his checkbook...and warren buffet...etc.
Is it really deregulation or merely the increase in regulated and controlled money. Play the game and get the cash - try to color outside the lines and get your hand slapped.
Just enough right-of-center people PO-ed about Crony Capitalism may join with the OWS crowd to vote her into the White House.
Especially if she is the only one speaking out against this.
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.