It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.
To: jurisdog
Actually, my view is "which part of 'no law' does Congrees not understand???" i think any regulation of speech via regulation of campaign limits is offensive ... but it is clear the unconstitutional part of this that has me and others hot around the collar is the provision that limits independent groups ability to speak out if it affects elections, within 60 days of election day.
It is also clear that the politicians in Congress are quite *fond* of the idea of limiting outside group spending, since it generally attacks *incumbents*. So this is an incumbent protection bill.
# 103 by WOSG
****************************
The restrictions on "hard" money are more of an infringement on free speech than the "soft" money restrictions.
Soft money goes to the Party, which spends it according to it's own needs. Because the Party has so much more money than any one politician, members of the party have to toe the line to survive.
Hard money goes directly into the hands of the politician YOU like.
For instance, Ron Paul will never get the support of the Republican Party for a run at the Presidency, because he DOESN'T allow himself to be intimidated by the leadership. They will never give him the power to interfere with their policies.
Now, if I were a rich man, I could pay ALL of Ron Paul's campaign bills, because I believe in him, and I trust him. That is, I could if hard money contributions were allowed. Since they're not, I get to contribute my money to the Republican Party as a whole, and watch my money be frittered away on people like John McCain, Trent Lott and George Bush.
See, the hypothetical rich old me wants to "make a difference,"
but because of hard money restrictions,
I'm forced to finance the entrenched bureaucracies.
ANY restriction on campaign finance is a violation of free speech.