Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Harry Browne blasts campaign laws at CFI conference in Washington, DC
LP.org ^ | 02/12/03

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."


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Free Republic
KEYWORDS: browne; campaign; cfi; conference; dc; harry; laws; washington; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
Although Browne said the event did not appear to generate much publicity...

The Liberteens are goin' down...

1 posted on 02/16/2003 5:56:30 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Libloather
So do you support CFR? Do you think it should be illegal to criticize an incumbent within 60 days of an election?

Not a big Harry fan.

2 posted on 02/16/2003 6:10:16 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
That enactment should be the first thing the higher courts pursue right out of the gate.
3 posted on 02/16/2003 6:45:29 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus (All your databases are belong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235; Wolfie; *Wod_list
Not a big Harry fan.

Is Harry kinda high?

4 posted on 02/16/2003 7:29:14 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Is Harry kinda high?

Never heard that one before.

We push heroin to kindergartners as well.

5 posted on 02/16/2003 8:19:04 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
The Liberteens are goin' down...

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?

6 posted on 02/16/2003 8:30:46 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Libloather is far too caught up in hating an infinitesimal portion of the population to worry about shamless violations of the 1st amendment.
7 posted on 02/16/2003 9:12:22 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
We push heroin to kindergartners as well...

Liberteens at their best...

8 posted on 02/16/2003 9:15:30 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
...an infinitesimal portion of the population...

That's why the Liberteens will never be winners.

9 posted on 02/16/2003 9:17:53 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Harry Browne seems to think that, if the Campaign Finance Laws were just more liberal, more Americans would vote for a blame-America-first jerkweed like him.

Guess what, Harry. You blew any tiny chance at anything when you blamed this country for 9/11.

You're a cartoon.

10 posted on 02/16/2003 9:18:57 PM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
I notice you didn't touch the subject...

I didn't touch anything.

11 posted on 02/16/2003 9:20:11 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
That's why the Liberteens will never be winners.

Does history record any case in which the majority was right? ... -rah

12 posted on 02/16/2003 9:33:01 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
We push heroin to kindergartners as well...

Liberteens at their best...

See what I mean?

13 posted on 02/16/2003 9:37:20 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AdamSelene235
Does history record any case...

What in the world does that have to do with the Liberteens being perpetual losers?

14 posted on 02/16/2003 9:38:44 PM PST by Libloather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Hey, where can I send in my $85 for an L.P. lawn sign? There's a situation which needs reform! LOL!
15 posted on 02/16/2003 9:40:14 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
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.

16 posted on 02/16/2003 9:44:02 PM PST by AdamSelene235 (Like all the jolly good fellows, I drink my whiskey clear.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Consider how a free-for-all candidate's debate would work. Perhaps I don't want to have to sit through 30,000 candidate introductions, and have to hear the Gunslingr3 Party candidate speak about sling shots and bazookas. If the Gunslingr3 Party can get more than, say, 10% of the vote then bring them into the big arena, and keep the other 29,997 candidates in the Not Ready For Primetime room.
17 posted on 02/16/2003 9:46:05 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
I despise the extra-governmental two-party system and their power plays.

But when I look at what we have for "third" parties, I can understand why the GOP and their nemisis feel it's best to defend one's status.
18 posted on 02/16/2003 10:13:42 PM PST by unspun (Enjoy "Aliens v. Predator?" You'll LOVE "Harry Browne v. Lyndon LaRouche" wherever comics are sold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: unspun
nemisis - nemesis
19 posted on 02/16/2003 10:16:07 PM PST by unspun (Enjoy "Aliens v. Predator?" You'll LOVE "Harry Browne v. Lyndon LaRouche" wherever comics are sold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Consider how a free-for-all candidate's debate would work.

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.

20 posted on 02/16/2003 10:28:00 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson