So the Supreme Court knocked down (large?) portions of McCain/Feingold. Spending is speech and Congress will make no law etc.
Generally I am a liberal, so I guess I am supposed to be outraged that the Court did what it did.
But I am not outraged. I applaud the decision. I have felt for some time that all the regulation of campaign spending is not constitutional. Now, I did not make a mission out of trying to undo it (I do not look forward to all of the commercials), but I have long thought it made no sense.
Part of my problem with campaign finance laws goes back to a universal truth. Create a rule and there will (immediately!) be those out there looking for a way around the rule. This creates another rule, and the process continues ad nauseum. Soon (a long time ago), the regulations are so complex that it is simply too easy to break them even with the best of intentions. All of that for rules that are unconstitutional in the first place and, lets face it, did not do much to keep money out of politics as was intended.
I think anyone should be able to give as much money as he or she (or it) wants to give to any candidate desired.
The one catch I would have is that all candidates must publish who gave (with occupation) and how much.
This kind of transparency is part of the current scheme and is the one part that strikes me as effective. I have on several occasions listened to a news story on how a given candidate received a donation from a sullied donor and the candidate returned the money. This works. And the internet makes it easily doable. Post the info and the press and the bloggers will let us know if there is cause for concern.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
And if mr sullied gives his bucks to mz clean, to give to the candidate ?
Or some permutation thereof…
In that scenario, mz clean is not so clean, is she?
And there has been (or can be) a law that prevents such an event (or permutation thereof….)?
Well, I am upset about the Court’s decision about corporations now being able to spend whatever they want on campaigns. I believe that does silence the ‘little guy.” However, Obama did prove that the voice of the average citizen will be heard, if enough speak.
Your comments do give me pause though because I too believe regulations can do more harm than good. But, then the government needs to get out of it all-together. If there are rules, regulations or tax incentives, etc. to help the big guys, someone has to help the little guy. I know one can’t go back, but I just wish the “too big to fail” groups had been allowed to fail. That might have provided some good sense in the future without regulations.
Perception being everything, in politics, if she is percieved as being mz clean…
And I thought the reasoning was to get away from adding more “laws”.
;o)