Mr. Smith Leaves Washington

Matt Welch | June 15, 2005

Federal Elections Commission Chairman and friend o' liberty Bradley Smith has submitted his resignation to President Bush, after serving five years on the board authorized to enforce the campaign finance laws he despised. From his resignation letter:

I remain concerned about the effects our campaign finance laws are having on grassroots political participation. Political activity is more heavily regulated than at any time in our nation's history. For example, in accordance with the law, during my tenure the FEC has assessed penalties against parents for contributing too much to the campaigns of children; against children for contributing to the campaigns of parents; and against husbands for contributing to campaigns of their wives. We have required citizens to respond to complaints for the display of homemade signs supporting a candidate. These are just a few examples: the Commission's regulations take up nearly 400 pages of fine print. I urge you to consider the effects of regulation on grassroots, citizen political activity when proposals arise for still more regulation.

Reason interviewed Smith in May 2004 and July 2001. Though Bush is somewhat of a campaign-finance skeptic, it's hard to imagine him nominating a replacement as rightfully hostile to a terrible set of laws.

Comments

|6.15.05 @ 1:34PM|#

Campaign Finance Reform worked like a charm, it secured the diopoly of a 2-party system and set in stone the "Pay to Play" rules for the Washington Politics racket, ensuring that future generations of Americans will have to leave lawmaking to only the wealthiest portion of our population. Woo. Hoo.

[e-mail]

|6.15.05 @ 1:52PM|#

And Bradley Smith makes the final proof that he isn't a worthless bureaucrat. How disheartening that it has to be by resigning.

|6.15.05 @ 2:51PM|#

it secured the diopoly

<pedant>Duopoly.</pedant>

Christopher Monnier|6.15.05 @ 3:58PM|#

I don't suppose Bradley Smith resigned because he's considering running for office? Pleeease!

|6.15.05 @ 4:27PM|#

I used to support CFR. I will always maintain that there is a real difference between free speech and bribery.

The problem is that every effort along those lines thus far has failed to stop the politicians from wallowing in donations. They're clearly just as bought-off as ever, but the amount of paperwork involved in campaigns has increased substantially. That's clearly no good.

So, my stance is that I support it in principle but I oppose most of the practices put forth thus far.

|6.15.05 @ 5:08PM|#

Well, let's cut to the end of the "what consitutes a 'donation'" argument any CFR debate engenders: Any speech in favor of some candidate, or critical of one of that candidate's opponents, can be considered to have some value to that candidate in an election. As we've seen, the FEC quite merrily agrees with this point.

Using that standard, what possible laws allow meaningful prevention of such "bribery" without censoring speech?

|6.15.05 @ 5:18PM|#

CFR should entail not allowing corporations to donate money to political campaigns, but never restrict the indivudual.

"I urge you to consider the effects of regulation on grassroots, citizen political activity when proposals arise for still more regulation."

Of course they consider this, that is why they continue to make more laws. Grassroots campaigning does not help the established parties and their leaders.

jimmy|6.16.05 @ 11:57AM|#

why should CFR prohibit corporations from donating? do people lose their freedom of speech simply because they join together as a business entity? do private businesses have no right to advance their own political beliefs? is this still a libertarian website (most of the time i can't tell any more)?