Libertarian Party: Campaign Finance Reform Ruling is Assault on Free Speech

Libertarian Party press release ^ | December 11, 2003 | George Getz

[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.

[carenot]

As did Bush. So really, what's the difference, aside from whether there's an R or D before their names?

None.

[NittanyLion]

In both instances, folks advocated putting a conservative position at risk in order to achieve a potential future benefit. The first has failed quite spectacularly. I'm wondering if, in light of that fact, anyone is reconsidering the second.

[carenot]

Please do not take my words out of context to suit your argument. It is unbecoming.

I'm sorry. :(

[The_Eaglet]

As far as socialistic spending is concerned, Bush's record is much closer to Hillary's intentions than my candidate of preference. Hillary is an advocate of usurpations of the Constitution, and George W. Bush is a practitioner thereof.

[TaxRelief]

When the rulings start going 5 to 4 and 6 to 3, etc, against the ACLU and the libs, then we will start making some real progress.

Amen.

[nopardons]

Thanks for the link and I understand. :-)

[Fledermaus]

I pray you are right. The problem in the past has been that "conservative" judges ended up not being so conservative after time on the bench. Just look at O'Conner!

[Conservative til I die]

Personally if I never saw another campaign ad on TV, it would suit me just fine.

I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the laws of this country and the Constitution don't exist to "suit you just fine."

[Conservative til I die]

If the Congress can getr away with infringing the Freedom of Speech of organizations, what's to stop them from trying to do the same to you and me? It's a slippery slope.

Because the GOP (and I am a card-carrying member of the GOP myself) hacks and flacks are of the "It's OK if it's our guys" mindset, shortsightedly thinking that while it'll be fun to wield CFR against the Dems, it can't ever be turned around against us. As if a Democrat will never be elected again.

[Celtman]

Our main goal, as FREEPERS and Conservatives, must be to elect as many GOPers as is humanly possible ...

      Our main goal, as FREEPERS and Conservatives, must be to nominate as many conservatives as is humanly possible, so that there will be an actual choice in the general elections.  No more RINOs!  (e.g. John McCain.)

[nopardons]

YUCK on McNasty and yes, the more Conservatives the better. :-)

[putupon]

President that everone keeps insisting is conservative.

BUMP!

Merry Christmas Winter Holidays,

Suckers

[dcwusmc]

bump!!

[Libertarianism]

Geoffrey Neale is brilliant. He basically said the same thing that Harry Browne said, but it still rings true. Campaign finance reform is a huge sham, and blatantly unconstitutional. Which amendment of the bill of rights will the government trample next? Now that they've trampled #1, it's time to finish up #2 I guess. How pathetic.

[Libertarianism]

Jim, but I don't want conservative judges, I want libertarian judges. I want judges like Clarence Thomas who lean libertarian and respect our Constitution. I would prefer Thomas over Scalia any day. Is that too much to ask?

[Jim Robinson]

That's fine by me.

[Libertarianism]

Agreed. What did you think of Harry Browne's candidacy? I agree with the Republicans on most issues except a lot of personal freedom issues like the drug war and gun rights. It seems too often RINOs like John McCain sell out and are trying to push more gun control legislation. Harry just really impressed me with his pro-freedom stances. There is no question that Bush was better than Gore because he is more libertarian, but Harry is even more libertarian than that. By the way, sorry about the private post, I didn't realize that you get a notification when someone replies to you. :) Have a nice day.

[Libertarianism]

And I understand the argument that Libertarians act as spoilers but I like to vote my conscience in elections, and for the politician that I agree with most. I guess you could say that the socialists voted their conscience too when they voted for Nader because Gore wasn't liberal enough for them. Haha.

[Jim Robinson]

Libertarianism aka Jakemeister, LoyalLibertarian, russfeingold, et al, nuked.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/928198/posts

Jim