Replies

Shays-Meehan is nothing but a ruse to assuage the restless slumber of the American electorate. No incumbent will be hurt in any way by it's enactment. Sellers of advertising will be affected, and that's where the cries of pain are arising. Rush says it's a constitutional issue, but that's simply because it's his ox being gored.

Meaningful CFR would be a damn good idea, but I don't want to stop anyone's excercize of speech. I would simply make it illegal for any PAC, corporation, union, or "group" of any kind to hide their contribution behind an acronym. Any American citizen should be able to support his candidate in whatever fashion he sees fit as long as he is willing to put his own name on the contribution. And as long as he can prove that he was personally responsible for whatever cost his contribution incurred.

Bush made a very good point during the 2000 election. I believe he said "if you think I can be bought for a $1000 contribution, vote for someone else." Obviously no one is concerned about $1000 contributions in the presidential races. It's the $1,000,000 soft money contributions that cause concern.

I think the solution would be to raise hard money limits to $5000; Rush pointed out that the $1000 limit was set back in the day when a brand new Ford Mustang cost $2700, so a $5000 limit is peanuts.

Soft money should be allowed. I didn't even think about the conventions, and clearly we need conventions. We also need party building, so soft money should be allowed. I think the key to reform is in better disclosure rules, not in contribution limits, calendar limits or outright bans.

It would be great though if hard money becomes the staple of politics (as it was pre-1974). Republicans, if I recall correctly, have a 3-1 advantage in hard money and only a slight disadvantage in soft money.