Federal Election Commision Chairman Bradley Smith, who John McCain has called a “stooge”, has finally decided to wash his hands of the matter and resign. 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.
This is the concrete outcome of McCain-Feingold, an outcome which John McCain regards as merely a good start. If he gets his way, groups like the Sierra Club and MoveOn.org would be subject to the same regulations
I wonder if the supporters of campaign finance reform are still willing to step forward and say “yes, this is what we wanted”? dputiger, we’ve clashed on this before – in light of the articles I linked to, do you still believe McCain is trying only to limit the influence of corporations and special interests on political campaigns, and not crack down on political speech at large?
From all I’ve read…
The members of the FEC don’t strike me as particularly noble and upstanding citizens… so.. I’m not particularly moved by his speech…
In any case.. a couple of thoughts..
1. Regulations take up so much paper because if they don’t then all the industrious americans will figure out the “loopholes” not covered by the shortly worded laws… and thus these laws cannot be enforced as well. Overall, this length problem is because we live in a society of “negative” laws–where it is assumed that you can do anything, unless it is prohibited.. If we lived in the reverse legal situation–where everything was prohibited unless it is specified that you can do it–then regulations wouldn’t need to be so long–only the constitution would need to be so long (like it is in Germany–where it is gigantic… )
2. when did money and speech become the same thing… I mean–political speech is still free–you can go tell everyone you know that you hate candidate so and so.. and if you get a bunch of friends together–I’m sure you can raise enough money to go on tv and say whatever the hell you want… no one is stopping you…(Unless you swear, of course, in which case the Sith lords at the FCC will assess you billions of dollars in fines….) In any case–doesn’t everyone still get to donate $2000 to each and every cause?? That, in itself, still means that people who have $2,000 to blow are going to get more attention than the vast majority of the country that doesn’t have that kind of money to blow..
3. So yes.. I think it is a good start.. Politics should not be about money.. I know that in the real world that it is.. but that doesn’t mean that we should just accept the fact and work against actions trying to prevent it… (Note.. politics should also not be about religion according to our founding fathers–but obviously in the real world–religion does play a role–so should we just acknowledge this fact and support laws that help remove the separation of church and state?? )
note.. feeling surly for no good reason at the moment…apologies in advance..
Re: From all I’ve read…
And yet, they find loopholes anyway… I am convinced that this is one area where there simply aren’t enough fingers to plug the holes in the dyke. See my “honeypot” theory.
Heh… like the two hundred and some-odd page European Constitution that just got shot down? I guess now I know how it got that big… 😉
Always has been, always will be, and there is no way to separate the two. Hosting for weblogs costs money. Free hosting is paid for by advertiser money. Billboards cost money. Pamphlet printing costs money. Cardboard and sharpies for making a hand-held sign costs money. The only speech that doesn’t cost money is talking, and I think our laws and jurisprudence are pretty clear on the fact that a free press, not just a free public square, are to be protected. Press implies publishing, and publishing always involves some amount of money. The more money, the more you can publish, and the more you can potentially reach.
I call fallacy – rejecting a negative law does not imply support for a positive law. Nobody’s proposing laws that wed politics and money even more closely. I’m opposing a law which tries (and fails) to separate the two. Big difference.
Re: From all I’ve read…
On the last point.. you are right.. that is not logically valid..entirely.. but then again.. I didn’t necessarily say that the new religion and politics laws should be passed–rather that we should support efforts to remove the laws separating them in the first place–which is what you are supporting here.. right?
however–on the second point–I am still not convinced–free speech is not necessarily dependent on money. In the town square–in prior times–you did not even have the right to speak certain things without fear of torture or death. Freedom of press is merely an outgrowth of the concept of freedom of speech–one that also guarantees your right to put speech down onto paper and hand it to you… or to get on new fangled technological contraptions that send out speech over various kinds of e/m waves…
However.. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right–it can be limited–i.e. you are not allowed to slander and you are not allowed to use speech to cause situations where other–more inalienable rights–like the right to life–are thus threatened by the use of speech…
Going from this point–when–under the cover of “freedom of speech”–money=resources are being funnelled into politics so that political policies are advocated/supported/pushed through that then damage the rights of others–generally, what I see to be a relatively practical definition of the effects of corruption–then I think that it is practical and just (and also constitutional) to set some basic limits on monetary donations. (my general paradigm for this is how energy corps like enron fund politics–and then go and screw large portions of the country through the political influence that they’ve bought–and their contributions, I assure you, were not nearly about them getting to “voice their political views”–unless we count as valid political views justifying the “right to defraud millions of fellow americans..”)
Overall–I still think you can have political positions pushed with set limits on campaign contributions–i.e. I don’t see why political speech is being suppressed when everyone–according to those articles you posted–still gets to donate $5,000 to various political groups.. I mean, really, is political life going to end, just because the republican and democratic parties don’t get to make 4/5, but only 1/10 of all commercials on television during October about how awful the other party is… they aren’t entirely banning contributions outright.. which, if it were the case, would tend to make me side with your position a lot more…
Re: From all I’ve read…
On the last point.. you are right.. that is not logically valid..entirely.. but then again.. I didn’t necessarily say that the new religion and politics laws should be passed–rather that we should support efforts to remove the laws separating them in the first place–which is what you are supporting here.. right?
however–on the second point–I am still not convinced–free speech is not necessarily dependent on money. In the town square–in prior times–you did not even have the right to speak certain things without fear of torture or death. Freedom of press is merely an outgrowth of the concept of freedom of speech–one that also guarantees your right to put speech down onto paper and hand it to you… or to get on new fangled technological contraptions that send out speech over various kinds of e/m waves…
However.. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right–it can be limited–i.e. you are not allowed to slander and you are not allowed to use speech to cause situations where other–more inalienable rights–like the right to life–are thus threatened by the use of speech…
Going from this point–when–under the cover of “freedom of speech”–money=resources are being funnelled into politics so that political policies are advocated/supported/pushed through that then damage the rights of others–generally, what I see to be a relatively practical definition of the effects of corruption–then I think that it is practical and just (and also constitutional) to set some basic limits on monetary donations. (my general paradigm for this is how energy corps like enron fund politics–and then go and screw large portions of the country through the political influence that they’ve bought–and their contributions, I assure you, were not nearly about them getting to “voice their political views”–unless we count as valid political views justifying the “right to defraud millions of fellow americans..”)
Overall–I still think you can have political positions pushed with set limits on campaign contributions–i.e. I don’t see why political speech is being suppressed when everyone–according to those articles you posted–still gets to donate $5,000 to various political groups.. I mean, really, is political life going to end, just because the republican and democratic parties don’t get to make 4/5, but only 1/10 of all commercials on television during October about how awful the other party is… they aren’t entirely banning contributions outright.. which, if it were the case, would tend to make me side with your position a lot more…
Re: From all I’ve read…
And yet, they find loopholes anyway… I am convinced that this is one area where there simply aren’t enough fingers to plug the holes in the dyke. See my “honeypot” theory.
Heh… like the two hundred and some-odd page European Constitution that just got shot down? I guess now I know how it got that big… 😉
Always has been, always will be, and there is no way to separate the two. Hosting for weblogs costs money. Free hosting is paid for by advertiser money. Billboards cost money. Pamphlet printing costs money. Cardboard and sharpies for making a hand-held sign costs money. The only speech that doesn’t cost money is talking, and I think our laws and jurisprudence are pretty clear on the fact that a free press, not just a free public square, are to be protected. Press implies publishing, and publishing always involves some amount of money. The more money, the more you can publish, and the more you can potentially reach.
I call fallacy – rejecting a negative law does not imply support for a positive law. Nobody’s proposing laws that wed politics and money even more closely. I’m opposing a law which tries (and fails) to separate the two. Big difference.
From all I’ve read…
The members of the FEC don’t strike me as particularly noble and upstanding citizens… so.. I’m not particularly moved by his speech…
In any case.. a couple of thoughts..
1. Regulations take up so much paper because if they don’t then all the industrious americans will figure out the “loopholes” not covered by the shortly worded laws… and thus these laws cannot be enforced as well. Overall, this length problem is because we live in a society of “negative” laws–where it is assumed that you can do anything, unless it is prohibited.. If we lived in the reverse legal situation–where everything was prohibited unless it is specified that you can do it–then regulations wouldn’t need to be so long–only the constitution would need to be so long (like it is in Germany–where it is gigantic… )
2. when did money and speech become the same thing… I mean–political speech is still free–you can go tell everyone you know that you hate candidate so and so.. and if you get a bunch of friends together–I’m sure you can raise enough money to go on tv and say whatever the hell you want… no one is stopping you…(Unless you swear, of course, in which case the Sith lords at the FCC will assess you billions of dollars in fines….) In any case–doesn’t everyone still get to donate $2000 to each and every cause?? That, in itself, still means that people who have $2,000 to blow are going to get more attention than the vast majority of the country that doesn’t have that kind of money to blow..
3. So yes.. I think it is a good start.. Politics should not be about money.. I know that in the real world that it is.. but that doesn’t mean that we should just accept the fact and work against actions trying to prevent it… (Note.. politics should also not be about religion according to our founding fathers–but obviously in the real world–religion does play a role–so should we just acknowledge this fact and support laws that help remove the separation of church and state?? )
note.. feeling surly for no good reason at the moment…apologies in advance..