New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | May 9, 2005

Jonathan Rauch hoses some of the Crisco off the steep incline of campaign finance regulation.

Comments

|5.9.05 @ 7:37PM|#

McCain on the water.

Tenagra on the water.

Feingold on the water.

McCain and Feingold at Tenagra.

The 527 at Tenagra.

McCain, his arms wide.

McCain and Feingold on the water.

Moveon.org, when the walls fell.

|5.9.05 @ 7:56PM|#

I used to be all in favor of CFR. I will always maintain that there is indeed a real difference between free speech and bribery.

The problem is trying to come up with a law that deals with it. Empirically, I note the following from election 2004:

1) The rules about who could say what and when and how were a lot more complicated. Hence all the claims and counter-claims about whether a 527 group was acting properly or improperly or whatever.

2) The damn thing was just as expensive as any previous election.

3) The candidates and their proxy organizations raised vast sums of cash.


Hmm, sounds to me like the cash kept flowing but it became more difficult to voice an opinion. Not good.

I guess I'm against CFR. It clearly isn't working.

And those who want to can take me to task for not simply taking the libertarian purist position, but I see nothing wrong with basing my conclusions on observations of the real world. If that makes me a statist, well, we need a few more empirically-minded statists then.

|5.9.05 @ 8:12PM|#

crimethink,

I actually got that reference. Funny shit.

|5.9.05 @ 8:44PM|#

Crimethink. Now, how many TNG geeks are there on H&R?

|5.9.05 @ 9:41PM|#

Even though TNG was the beginning of the end of my love affair with all things ST, I got Crimethink's reference. :)

|5.9.05 @ 11:01PM|#

I got it too, weird episode.

|5.10.05 @ 12:47AM|#

Thoreau, his eyes uncovered! I guess you ignored us when we warned, Buckley! Buckley v. Valeo!

OK, Darmok is my favorite ST:TNG episode. It has actual science fiction content, which alone makes it stand out. Actual linguists may feel like ripping it to shreds, but, hey, meeting up with aliens who think differently beats hell out of trading zap-rays with disguised Romans or Soviets. Kudos to scripter Joe Menosky.

Those who need a quick translation can look here.

Kevin

|5.10.05 @ 1:21AM|#

Throw-away on topic statement: CFR Sucks.


kevrob,

Where's the love for Time's Arrow? Or Cause and Effect? Or Conundrum for galaxy's sake?

R C Dean|5.10.05 @ 9:51AM|#

thoreau, my naive friend:

I guess I'm against CFR. It clearly isn't working.

But it is working, exactly as planned. As you state your own self:

the cash kept flowing but it became more difficult to voice an opinion.

|5.10.05 @ 12:18PM|#

R C Dean-

I want to argue with you. I really do.

But I'm afraid you might be right.

|5.10.05 @ 2:27PM|#

But it is working, exactly as planned.

CFR should be called what it really is: IPL (Incumbant Protection Legislation).

I will always maintain that there is indeed a real difference between free speech and bribery.

Indeed, Kerry was able to pay parking tickets with contributions.

The bigger issue is that we should be able to buy adds or contribute to a candidate of our choice. Even if 100% of CF contributions were shut down, bribes would continue. In fact, strict CF laws might favor bribes: CF laws tend to favor incumbants, and what to you do when you have entrenched incombants. Mexico is a good example of a place were for many years one party ruled, CF was probably irrelevent, and bribes were the means to some end or other . . .