That said, what are your solutions?
|
Posted on 12/11/2003 6:38:18 PM PST by Commie Basher
====================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
====================================
For release: December 11, 2003
====================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================
High court's ruling is all-out assault on right to engage in politics, Libertarians say
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party, which is one of the plaintiffs that challenged the campaign finance law upheld on Tuesday by the Supreme Court, has denounced the ruling as an "all-out assault on the right of every American to engage in the political process."
"Why not just outlaw elections and get it over with?" said Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party's national chair. "The Supreme Court has just given incumbent politicians the power to financially cripple their competitors and, in the process, award themselves lifetime jobs."
In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. Specifically, the court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions, as well the law's prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election.
But Libertarians point out that McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an incumbent protection act in the first place -- and that the court's ruling was tantamount to outlawing political competition.
"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."
Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.
The so-called campaign finance reform act was merely an attempt to eliminate the only weapon that many challengers have: contributions freely given by individuals or groups that share their views, he noted.
Acknowledging that the stated goal of the legislation was to clean up politics, Neale said: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that 'corruption, and in particular the appearance of corruption,' is rampant in Washington -- and of course, she's right.
"But a free-flowing, robust political debate isn't the problem; it's the solution. The only way to dislodge an entrenched, corrupt politician is to allow competing candidates, and anyone else who so chooses, to publicly criticize them and offer voters a better alternative.
"By upholding McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court has merely guaranteed that corrupt politicians will stay in office for a longer period of time."
In March 1992, the Libertarian Party signed on as a co-plaintiff in McConnell v FEC, the lawsuit spearheaded by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell that sought to overturn the campaign finance reform law.
The party argued that the law would have a devastating impact on its activities by eliminating certain sources of revenue and imposing significant regulatory and administrative burdens.
For example, the law prohibits the organization from accepting donations of more than $25,000 from any individual; prevents it from taking money from organizations that are not "recognized political committees," so it cannot sell ads in its party newspaper to nonprofit corporations or incorporated businesses; and cannot accept funds for memberships or literature from its own state affiliates, unless they also comply with the law's onerous regulations.
However, the party was vindicated by one aspect of Tuesday's ruling, Neale added, when the court struck down the provision of the law banning minors from making contributions to political parties.
I agree. I just disagree that the Republican Party is still a conservative party. The Rockefeller Republicans control the party and are squeezing the few conservatives left, forcing them to go along with their big government agenda. I don't see that changing until conservatives at least threaten to walk away. Right now they think we have no place to go and have to take anything they dish out.
Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders.
Incumbent protection is the disease. Term limits are the cure.
As did Bush. So really, what's the difference, aside from whether there's an R or D before their names?
I cannot! but to imply that is what I am doing is specious. President Bush made a mistake in signing this, and I made a mistake that it was just a political move, and would never see the light of day.
That said, what are your solutions?
That said, what are your solutions?
|
I'll spot you the homosexual ajenda advancement. That's purely a Democrat thing.
Bush has pledged to reauthorize the "assault weapons" ban, and the GOP hasn't done a single thing to repeal it since it has had control of the Congress and White House. They must like things the way they are. No bonus for them on the gun issue, because they've said a lot and done little.
There are differences, but they are a lot more minor than most Republican supporters are willing to admit.
And our reward has been the most rapid expansion of the federal government since FDR was in office.
Who's nuts, Jim?
Since 2000, we have taken the WH., both the House and Senate, a majority of the Governorships, and majotity control of the State Legislatures. You may call these pyrrhic victories, but I call them a foundation to build on.
I liken our political situation to Trump's problems in the early 90's.(albeit on a much grander scale and encompassing more than fiscal responsibility)Because of a crashing real estate market Trump found himself in a minus cash flow situation and on the verge of bankruptcy. The banks who were holding his paper had the choice of calling in their notes and in all probability having to write off millions and millions. The banks decided doing this was harmful to their health, formed a consortium and propped Trump up. The market turned up, Trump was saved, and the banks said, thank God! I think it is time for us to really get behind President Bush, increase our majorities in the Senate and get our Judges confirmed. This will sound the death knell for the likes of Ralph Neas and his ilk. If one of the nine dwarves gets elected, there will be at least three Judges he will replace To me, that would mean we as voters of President Bush, have written off our losses, and are willing to accept the consequences. I posit, this is harmful to our health, and the alternative is unthinkable.!
I respect you for standing with the conservative Republicans where they exist, but are you going to stand with the Republicans who oppose the liberties you embrace?
Jim, I also respect you for your allowing us to speak freely on your forum while we have these liberties. It is becoming more apparent that if we don't use them, we will lose them.
THANK YOU.
Then you don't see the logic. Either the SCOTUS overrules the law, in which case you've achieved total political victory by removing the issue from your opponents without giving anything up, or else the SCOTUS rules that the law *is* Constitutional, in which case you haven't signed anything unConstitutional, per SCOTUS.
I've been thinking a lot lately about who would make a good GOP candidate for '08. Someone who is conservative and electable at the same time. I'm leaning towards DeLay at this point. Thoughts?
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.