Lobby Reform
The headline reads Parties struggle to find balance in lobby reform.
Here’s a thought:
- No money from anyone except individuals capped at $2,000.
- No money from anyone that doesn’t reside in your district.
- A cap of $10,000 on the part of the candidate him/herself.
What could be simpler? No more union extortion. No more NRA heavy-handedness. No more millionaires buying a senator. No more exorbitantly expensive political campaigns that run for two years.
If you belong to a group that backs a candidate they’ll let you know and you make the decision to support them (or not).
Strict ethics rules would prevent gifts, including expensive dinners. Strict reporting rules with teeth behind sentencing would put a stop to third-party activities like throwing expensive fund raisers. Contributions to PACs are perfectly acceptable, but the PACs can’t give money to politicians or run ads: they are restricted to doing research, writing white papers, trying to get to a politician to give a point of view (sans money in a white envelope) and mailings to members supporting a candidate.
And don’t give me any weepy arguments about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech belongs to individuals (like the right to bear arms), not to PACs. And if the Supreme Court can declare the McCain-Feingold stomping on the Founding Fathers as constitutional, then this will certainly pass muster.
But the article contains the answer to the question, “Why will nothing really change?”
Both parties are striving to find a delicate balance that ends some of the abuses exposed by the Abramoff scandal while not damaging their political prospects.
So once again the foxes are in charge of the henhouse and reform will consist of more rhetoric than action — from either party.
Technorati Tags: Campaign Finance,
Campaign Finance Reform.
Yeah, who needs that whole “First Ammendment” thing.
PACs are comprised of individuals. But ignoring that for a second, how is a $2000 individual cap not a clamp on individual free speech?
“how is a $2000 individual cap not a clamp on individual free speech?” – Mark J
1. You’re giving money to a politician who, quite frankly, isn’t usually going to be hurting for cash. You’re not speaking or making a statement.
2. Actual demonstration of free speech would be the lobbying organizations promoting their causes using actual speech, not money.
3. Shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater is generally considered to be illegal, and that’s a clamp on free speech. We’re not complaining about that, now are we?
The Court has already decided in Buckley that self-funding is a component of free speech. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you in premise, but this solution is idealistic. Holmes constructed the clear and present danger test (ie fire in a theatre) to demonstrate that government should NOT be engaging in oppressive policy unless it can demonstrate that an interest at the core of its functionality is damaged by absolute freedom. In this case you might argue that the state has a compelling interest in regulating speech, but I doubt the Court would buy it.