I can see that you are frustrated. I am not a democrat. You just want me to be one because you can't argue with me logically.
Actually, the news that you claim to be a "conservative" Republican is as disturbing as it is disappointing.
You have made no argument. You have made a series of assertions with no supporting argument to back them up. You simply assert that soft money contributions are bribes. You provide neither argument nor proof that they are so, as if saying so makes it so.
As I said earlier, if you want to run with the Big Dogs, you have to get off the porch.
I am a conservative Republican that would prefer that presidents be free to conduct the business of the nation without bribery. If other democracies soft money bribes don't exist because they see them for what they are .... bribes.
How do you know this? Can you detail to me the campaign finance laws, if any, of Germany, France, Italy, or Japan?
Money plays just as much of a part in the politics of those countries as it does here. The scale is smaller, that's all.
See, I think I finally have you figured out. You're one of those "good government" Republicans who believes that money is, of needs be, a corrupting influence in politics. As such, you live in a world divorced from reality. Money is, as the wag said, "the mother's milk of politics". Attempting to seperate money from politics is a fool's errand. And it is an absolute crock of sh#t.
The Republicans take in more hard money than dems. They would be better off without soft money. The pres spend inordinent amounts of time soliciting contributions because he has too. That is bad for our country.
Wait a minute!
How do you know that the Republicans would be better off?
And how do you know that the President (who has his WH staff actually solicit monthly monies through the RNC and through big fundraisers) spends an inordinate time raising money?
He's raised more money than Clinton ever did, but hasn't spent more real time than Clinton did. That's because our hard money network is more effective than the DNC's, and we can raise more money more quickly. The Bush people use their time effectively, and wisely.
At bottom, our disagreement is simple. I believe that soft money contributions are protected speech. You believe that they are bribes. I strongly believe that George Will was correct when he asserted that we need more money in politics, not less.
I believe that the SCOTUS will see things my way as I suspect that a majority of this court will see this for what it is, a First Amendment issue.
Remember, if they can regulate your speech one way, it opens the door to regulate your speech in so many other ways.
Be Seeing You,
Chris