The WSJ on Campaign Finance Reform
I try to pace out my comments about Campaign Finance Reform to avoid burning out the few of you folks who care. But when the Wall Street Journal, the newspaper to the people who run the world, writes an editorial on the subject I can’t let that just go by without a comment from a Moderate Voice.
In The Reformers Who Ruined Politics the Journal vents that regulation is undermining freedom of speech and giving advantage to the liberal interest groups.
If this campaign proves anything, it is that more reform on the post-Watergate model will only compound the McCain-Feingold-Clinton-Obama folly. The rules themselves are the scandal, empowering the powerful and making it harder for voters to judge the indebtedness of candidates to individuals or interest groups.
The better path is more simplicity and transparency, so office seekers can raise whatever amount they can from whomever they want so long as it is reported immediately on the Internet. It’s time we reclaimed politics from the reformers who ruined it.
Their remedy is still public policy for sale to the highest bidder. Is it realistic that consumer groups can compete with the unlimited donations from multinational juggernauts?
What is more realistic is to allow any candidate to take money from any source and support from any third party but to make sure that any credible opponents has equal amounts of cash and resources to make sure the public can hear equally from all points of view. Under these conditions most donors would probably take a pass rather than have their funds neutralized with public money. The result is that almost all campaigns would be funded at relatively modest levels, at least by current standards.
Just because the current regulations on campaign finance are deficient doesn’t mean that a better approach doesn’t exist. Let’s try something else until we find what works better.
3 Responses to “The WSJ on Campaign Finance Reform”
[...] Original post by EPIC [...]
I'm not surprised that the WSJ would take a position to support the stranglehold moneyed interests have on politics. They want to be part of those applying the stranglehold, after all.
The back and forth argument about regulations is becoming as nonsensical as the forever argument about the size and role of government. People at the extremes argue by pointing out the worst results of the other extreme. It's the politics of fear all over again, and it lacks any real substance between the extremes. .
It's an intellectually illegimate and pointless method of argument.
I'm with Goldilocks here. I don't want the bowl that's too big, nor the one that's too small. I'm looking for the bowl that's just big enough to accomodate my meal, but not so big that I'll choke by eating the contents.
Neutralizing the moneyed interests, so that we can have a rational, honest evaluation of the patriculars of any legislation concerning financing, regualtions, government or anything else is the only way that I can see to break the stranglehold -and go on dealing with the stuff that affects our lives.
Maybe the Wall Street Journal folkes would oppose other past campaign finance legislation. Things like: The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, The Federal Election Campaign Act, The Hatch Act, The Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, The Civil Service Reform Act, The Smith-Connally Act, The Espionage Act of 1917, and The Sedition Act of 1918.
Somehow I just can't see then objecting to Taft-Hartley which curtailed the influence of liberal unions the same way they get so worked up against McCain-Feingold. The laws should be consistent and if McCain-Feingold is a violation of the First Ammendment, so are all the others listed above, can't just pick and choose whichever ones don't favor your particular group.