Posted on 02/16/2003 5:56:30 PM PST by Libloather
Harry Browne blasts campaign laws at CFI conference in Washington, DC
(February 12) American campaign finance laws are not just hypocritical -- they're "designed to assure the re-election of incumbents."
That was the message that Harry Browne delivered at a conference entitled "Task Force on Financing Presidential Nominations," hosted by the Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) at the National Press Club in Washington, DC on January 31.
Browne, the LP's 1996 and 2000 presidential candidate, appeared on a "Third Party Perspectives" panel with Theresea Amato of the Green Party and Kingsley Brooks of the Natural Law Party.
During his remarks, Browne said he complimented the CFI -- a nonprofit group dedicated to "reforming" campaign finance laws -- for its "conscientious" work and goals.
However, he told them, "[You are] trying to make the campaign finance laws more equitable and more efficient; but the people who actually write the laws have no such motives. All they want is to assure that the laws help them get re-elected."
Meanwhile, said Browne, the Green and Natural Law representatives argued for "even bigger government -- tighter controls, more paperwork, government funding of campaigns, forcing networks to provide free air time, and such."
Although Browne said the event did not appear to generate much publicity -- and probably won't influence future Congressional debate on campaign finance laws -- "I think it's significant that the CFI invited us to have our views heard. I'm glad I had the opportunity to represent the LP."
The Liberteens are goin' down...
Not a big Harry fan.
Is Harry kinda high?
Never heard that one before.
We push heroin to kindergartners as well.
Harry Browne is just pointing out that equality under the law doesn't apply to running for office. The people setting the rules have rigged the game. I notice you didn't touch the subject of his argument: "[You are] trying to make the campaign finance laws more equitable and more efficient; but the people who actually write the laws have no such motives. All they want is to assure that the laws help them get re-elected."
How would you feel, if when the Democrats seized control of Congress, they crafted the campaign laws in such a way as to compel Republicans to meet different, more difficult, standards to put their candidates on the ballot?
Liberteens at their best...
That's why the Liberteens will never be winners.
Guess what, Harry. You blew any tiny chance at anything when you blamed this country for 9/11.
You're a cartoon.
I didn't touch anything.
Does history record any case in which the majority was right? ... -rah
Liberteens at their best...
See what I mean?
What in the world does that have to do with the Liberteens being perpetual losers?
Well, we've devolved into a socialist mobocracy. "Winning" involves mob appeal.
Not suggesting a 'free-for-all'. I understand the purpose and justification of having a signature requirement for ballot consideration, etc. The problem with the current system is that the bar is set at 1,000 signatures for the Republocrats, and 10,000 for anyone else. These parties are not enshrined in the Constitution, and shouldn't be enshrined in law. Make a standard, but make it apply equally, otherwise amend the Constitution and at least remove that reference to the notion of equality before the law - don't just ignore it.
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.