New at Reason

Steve Chapman untangles the latest do-gooder plot to mess with the Constitution in the name of campaign finance reform.

Comments

prolefeed | October 29, 2007, 8:58am | #

But ... but ... the Democrats said they would clean up corruption if they got in power. So this must be about reducing corruption, right?

/snark

anon. | October 29, 2007, 9:01am | #

Incidentally, this isn't the first time Specter--who recently called Buckley v. Valeo the worst Supreme Court decision since Dred Scott (http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/ID.285/blog_detail.asp)--has done this. He introduced this same thing back in 1997. Back then it got 38 votes.

Episiarch | October 29, 2007, 9:12am | #

Yes...Chuck (you know what that rhymes with) Schumer. A truly vile, power-hungry scumbag. He is the ultimate example of a politician who knows that he is better than you, and fuck you if you think that's wrong, peasant.

Michael Pack | October 29, 2007, 9:14am | #

The demos are just doing the same kind of things they did before 1994.Remember the 40 years before 1994?The feds are now in parts of our lives most could not have imagined in 1960.

Taktix® | October 29, 2007, 9:19am | #

But ... but ... the Democrats said they would clean up corruption if they got in power. So this must be about reducing corruption, right?

No, no. You have it all wrong. They're first going to end the war... uhh, well then they're going to impeach Bu...

Oh, that didn't happen either. At least they'll... condemn the Armenian Genocide and pass a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh!

But hey, at least teeth-less, stupid fucking gestures don't affect my freedom...

Bill Pope | October 29, 2007, 9:46am | #

"...the restrictions would impoverish public understanding by impeding communication"

Actually, the biggest impediment to public understanding are the narrow limits to acceptable debate imposed by the corporate MSM.

Taktix® | October 29, 2007, 9:56am | #

Actually, the biggest impediment to public understanding are the narrow limits to acceptable debate imposed by the corporate MSMis that most people don't give a shit.

There, fixed...

J sub D | October 29, 2007, 11:00am | #

If Arlen Specter were hit by a meteor today, I'd rethink my atheism. I despise that SOB.

Apologies to Mrs. Specter, of course.

Santino M | October 29, 2007, 1:14pm | #

Thank you for reminding to NEVER, EVER, consider voting for McCain.

J sub D | October 29, 2007, 2:48pm | #

Well, McCain Feingold didn't work because of that pesky First Amendment. So we have to make an exception for political speech and writings. Why? Because political speech is so important it must be controlled and limited by the ruling elite.

That is what the argument, reduced to its basics, is. If there is a way for you to be more insulted, please tell me about it.

stephendedalus | October 29, 2007, 3:55pm | #

I don't think amending the Constitution is a good idea, I just think the original notion that money = speech is flawed. That formulation means that billionaires have more free speech than the poor, which I'm sure sounds just dandy to libertarians, but, to my mind, actually decreases the functionality of the 1st amendment.

R C Dean | October 29, 2007, 4:47pm | #

How does the fact that someone with more resources has, ipso facto, more resources to spend distributing their speech decrease the "functionality" of the First Amendment?

Does that fact that rich people can afford more guns decrease the functionality of the Second Amendment? Ditto for lawyers and the Fifth Amendment?

It seems to me that limitng the exercising our rights only to the extent that the poorest among us may do so would put a real dent in the functionality of the Bill of Rights.

John C. Randolph | October 30, 2007, 2:00am | #

Of all the things that our tax money is wasted on, the one that I find the most offensive is propaganda, especially the money that gets paid out to politicians as "federal matching funds" for their campaigns.

I remember an article in Reason back in the early 1980's, I think it was, titled "how the donkey and the elephant turned into pigs", all about campaign funding at our expense.

-jcr

wm | October 30, 2007, 2:21pm | #

I kind of like the idea of corporations not being allowed to contribute to political campaigns, since corporations can't vote. Take away the federal matching funds and the corporate contributions (which usually go to both approved parties as protection money), and there wouldn't be a whole lot of money corrupting those campaigns anymore.

daveylee | October 30, 2007, 4:38pm | #

"Does that fact that rich people can afford more guns decrease the functionality of the Second Amendment? Ditto for lawyers and the Fifth Amendment?"

Kind of a spurious arguement as far as the guns go. A rich person might own many guns, but could only "use" a limited number of them at one time unless he hires an army, which would raise some constitutional red flags I would think.

As for lawyers, not sure where your comment came from there. Owning or paying for more lawyers has little or nothing to with the 5th Amendment. Though I'm quite sure there have been cases where rich folks have been able to pay their teams of lawyers enough money to get them out of a jam (read O.J. Simpson).

But with money=speech, it's painfully obvious that a wealthy person is going to get more in the way of influence with their "speech" than someone with less "speech" further down the economic ladder.

LarryA | October 31, 2007, 2:02am | #

I kind of like the idea of corporations not being allowed to contribute to political campaigns, since corporations can't vote.

Except that the corporations the politicians most desperately want to limit are the membership corporations (NRA, AARP, Common Cause, Sierra Club, MALDEF, ACLU, NAACP, NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc.) that exist in part to give their members a say in the political process.

But with money=speech, it's painfully obvious that a wealthy person is going to get more in the way of influence with their "speech" than someone with less "speech" further down the economic ladder.

But what will that influence accomplish? The only reason to raise campaign contributions is to buy advertising opportunities. Those ads educate voters on what the politicians think on the issues. "Attack ads" are doubly educational since they inform you about the politician attacking as well as the target.

If George Soros buys a nationwide TV spot to tell the American people that Hillary believes in gun control and socialized medicine, that would make casting a ballot much easier for voters on both sides of those issues.

Donavon Pfeiffer Jr | November 1, 2007, 1:40pm | #

The only way to end the corruption in Washington is to give power back to the states and to the individual citzens. Any bill supposedly designed to fight the corruption in Washington which does nothing to strip Washington of any of the powers it has claimed above and beyond those specificly granted it in the Constitution is a bit of misdirection at best.