RSS 2.0 FeedA Quote With Re-Quoting
by Doug MataconisSenator Mitch McConnell on the absurdity that is public campaign fianancing:
Those who support a candidate are free to contribute to his or her campaign. They always have been. But the idea that those who don’t support that candidate should also contribute to his or her campaign is worse than nonsense: It’s a coercive use of taxpayer funds.
Well said.
H/T: Club for Growth
Speaking of quoting, I notice that when statistcs are quoted, even the references don’t say where their data comes from. I know this is off topic, but the post comments are closed.
Comment by VRB — February 9, 2007 @ 12:39 pmBefore this administration, I looked at public financing as a welfare program- a way to put social workers into elected positions. Thinking about that position reflecting on the current situation, I may be changing my mind.
Money is buying corruption on a massive scale. Nothing new there you say? But now we are using that corruption to undermine liberty and calling corporatism individualism. What a word game! 180′ off the mark and yet we buy it. Why? Because advertising and PR works. There certainly has to be a vetting process but that is what the parties are for. Spend your money on getting the party to endorse your candidates, then have a purely public debate forum between those candidates. Equal air time in debate format and absolutely no advertising once that process begins.
Before you start shouting collectivism, realize the problem this is addressing:
Reality keeps tripping up the liberal left but truth is tripping up the conservative right.
Advertising is a mechanism specifically designed to circumnavigate those specific pathologies. We as a population would never believe either of those conditions to affect us personally but obviously, some of us are wrong.
Our entire batch of neocons has demonstrated an utterly orwellian proclivity for lying, stealing, immorality, criminal activity and the desire to control dictatorially.
The liberal branch that supports peta and support group counseling has demonstrated an utter incapacity to make decisions based on reality.
Both have money. Both can buy ad space. Neither can answer direct questions related to their seperate spheres of denial.
I don’t know that there is a real solution but I am looking for a good old fashioned, honest crook to run the damn show again. Where’s Ike? Teddy? Reagan? Clinton? Kennedy? Grant?
All honestly crooked. All aware that they could be crooked as long as it was hidden. As long as it was separate from the nation’s business. All realists. Like or hate them.
No ads, no fluff. Make it criminal to hire ad agencies and pr firms for politics or political issues. Um… I see where that’s going. But you get my point. Am I off my nut here? If so, why?
Comment by BWE — February 9, 2007 @ 1:45 pmBWE,
How would you handle alternative parties to the top two? I’m assuming the Libertarians and Greens probably have to get equal time, since most people have actually heard of them, right? Then there’s a host of other parties out there that will want a piece. And the public funds will probably cause other parties to spring up, from all over the spectrum.
So you have to limit it somehow, which basically entrenches the established parties and makes it even harder for alternatives to exist.
In short, why should my tax dollars go to helping Republicans and Democrats campaign, when I’m neither?
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 9, 2007 @ 5:00 pmDon’t know. But I do know that the current system is spending far more of our tax dollars on the various wars on whatever than this system could ever manage.
Let’s assume that the parties have to get x number of signatures to be in the debates?
What do you think of the overall problem I am addressing? As onerous as it may be, is it more onerous than what we have? Less? Just different day same shit? I also feel like the more competing interests we have in a debate setting, the more real ideas get bandied about. Nothing wrong with a bad idea unless there is no check on it, yknow?
Comment by BWE — February 9, 2007 @ 6:14 pmBWE,
I’d go the opposite way. Instead of rigid campaign finance restrictions, or public funding of campaigns, how about loosening the restrictions? There’s a reason I refer to McCain-Feingold as the “Incumbent Protection Act”. It makes it harder for new voices to enter the field. They’ve been trying to find ways ever since 2004 to use that law to muzzle the blogosphere as well, because we’ve been a pesky thorn in their side, derailing their message.
The more power you give to the politicians to finance the elections, the more you ensure that those politicians will never get knocked out of power. I don’t see this as a problem that greater freedom won’t help to solve.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — February 10, 2007 @ 9:18 am