Harry Browne blasts campaign laws at CFI conference in Washington, DC

LP.org ^ | 02/12/03

[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."

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

"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."

In what state? It's equal for all. They don't have different signature amounts for different parties.

[laotzu]

"That's why(infinitesimal portion of the population) the Liberteens will never be winners"

Winners?!! Is it most important to be a winner?

Are right & wrong, for you, the outcomes of popularity contests?

Must one be part of a large herd to be a winner?

Bill Clinton was a winner. What, of him, would you emulate?

[GVnana]

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."

Harry is right. And John McCain should be forever ashamed for his part in this.

[MrLeRoy]

It's equal for all. They don't have different signature amounts for different parties.

"An independent candidate for U.S. Senate must collect 36,051 petition signatures to qualify for the general election ballot. Major party nominees (usually incumbents) must submit only 1000." - http://thekeel.home.att.net/flier92front.htm