RSS 2.0 FeedFred Thompson And Campaign Finance Reform
by Doug MataconisGeorge Will writes this morning about the one issue that could derail the excitement over a possible White House run by former Senator Fred Thompson; his support for McCain-Feingold:
In 1996, Thompson worked successfully, unfortunately, to preserve the (currently collapsing) system of public financing of presidential campaigns. His arguments were replete with all the rhetoric standard among advocates of government regulation of political speech: Government regulation of politics is necessary to dispel “cynicism” about government (has that worked?), to create a “level playing field” and to prevent politics from being “awash with money” (Congressional Record, May 20, 1996).
In a news release that day he warned of money from “special interests” and asserted that the checkoff system “flat out worked” because in 1994, 24 million taxpayers checked the “yes” box on their Form 1040, thereby directing that $3 of their income tax bill go to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. He asserted that “on average, 20 percent of Americans participate in the checkoff.” Well.
In 1994, according to the IRS, the checkoff was used on 16.3 million, or 14 percent, of the 114.8 million individual tax returns, so a landslide of 86 percent of forms were filed by taxpayers who rejected participation. Today, use of the checkoff has sunk to just 9.6 percent. Its unpopularity is unsurprising, given that it has allowed a small minority to divert, in a bookkeeping dodge, $1.3 billion of federal revenue to fund the dissemination of political views that many taxpayers disapprove of as much as they disapprove of public funding of politics.
Does Thompson still believe this stuff ? Does he still think that it’s acceptable to stifle political speech in the name of reform ? It will be interesting to find out. At the very least, since I’ve already said that McCain-Feingold is reason enough for me to vote against John McCain, it would have to be reason enough not to support one of it’s chief sponsors as well.
George Will Not On This Jot of Slant.
To allow for George’s very long reach here, lets quickly re-cap his…contention.
An elected representative ( Fred ) makes a stand against the purchase of politicians and has the audacity to offer solutions. We know that doesn’t happen often but, imagine that.
So, Fred did his homework and saw that an average of 20% of tax filers donated to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Recognizing this would not be an overreaching burden on us, as we otherwise witness on a daily basis from Congress, he offers this as assistance to relieve the situation. However, since Fred did not use the correct crystal ball that day, he could not reliably predict the future to George’s ’standard’ of accuracy…A high crime indeed.
As George’s testament to…well, nothing, he continues in suggesting Fred is somehow responsible for the acts by criminal accountants…Which is the same as saying spoons are responsible for making Rosie O’Donnell fat.
George also doesn’t seem to appreciate the political process either; An idea is born out of necessity ( stopping the purchase of politicians ) a bill is authored and is bastardized by both sides in the usual process until it is often found unrecognizable by the original author.
Yet, despite this McCain-Feingold actually W-O-R-K-S. That’s right folks, see for yourself the direct evidence as defined here;
Reform That Has Really Paid Off by Norman Ornstein and Anthony Corrado Jr.
Sunday, April 1, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/30/AR2007033002070.html
The just of this offered evidence is that freedom of speech has not been denied at all. It is redirected so that special interests, that were directly buying politicians before, are denied participation in the 60 days prior to an election. PACs and individuals STILL have the right and exercise of their freedom of speech and are utilizing it at the exact same rate as before!
Special Interests have propogated the fabrication that it denies our first amendment in hopes they will again gain their power in influence…Pathetic really.
I may be able to be hoodwinked on occasion but, I’m never a willing fool.
George has helped me see the light…I’m absolutely despondent with my full and unwavering support for Fred Thompson. After he accepts the office of the Presidency, I’ll be able to sleep soundly knowing that our country is in the best hands possible…How selfish of me.
Perhaps, George would find himself less frustrated if he would simply do HIS homework before attempting to malign a good and decent man as Fred Dalton Thompson…The 44th President of The United States.
Comment by Chris — April 8, 2007 @ 2:40 pmChris,
Let me suggest you research on item….
It’s called the First Amendment.
Then, get back to me.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 8, 2007 @ 3:07 pmNice rant Chris, but you fail to see the larger point. Stifling my speech is unconstitutional. The McCain-Feingold act, which Thompson supported, violates my rights. This has nothing to do with whether it “worked”, or not. As this site has continuously argued, you will never prevent politicians from being bought. You can reduce the impact that the corruption has by reducing the power the politicians have. A point you fail to recognize, apparently.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 8, 2007 @ 3:08 pmRead the article slowly if you must but, it in no way limits your speech as an indivudual ( or PACS )…It limits SPECIAL INTERESTS as to their involvement and buying of elected officials which we have been used to.
Comment by Chris — April 8, 2007 @ 4:58 pmAPART from this fact, Fred has already said Mc-F didn’t perform as designed;
Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Snw7_6mJf5c
Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cN3z4mqRn7I
Look at his stable record and beliefs…The man has stood completely alone on several votes when both parties collaborated on legislation that overreached.
Which elected official can you name in recent history that has the stones to do that…who do you know has the character to do that?
C’mon guys, check it out for yourself.
Comment by Chris — April 8, 2007 @ 5:15 pmAND Adam,
If you truly believe we can not stop politicians from being bought, what on earth makes you believe we can reduce their power ofwhich they guard jealously??
Comment by Chris — April 8, 2007 @ 5:21 pmJust a thought given the available candidates and the attributes of Fred Thompson. Perhaps the real free speech issue is whether anybody is listening. Fred Thompson will listen.
Comment by Harry — April 8, 2007 @ 5:57 pmChris, McCain-Feingold does, indeed, limit my free speech. Are you so ignorant as to think that “special interests” don’t count as people or citizens?
Comment by Adam Selene — April 8, 2007 @ 6:39 pmChris -
It doesn’t matter whether McCain-Feingold worked or not. Its stated goals are disturbing and expressly forbidden by the Constitution.
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. This language is clear and inviolable. Anyone who swears an oath to uphold the Constitution yet supports laws that blatantly violate it deserves to be called on it.
With regards to your comments on power, the framers knew they could never reduce power once it was stolen by the government, that’s why they limited it so clearly. Ignore the limits, as the government has done with McCain-Feingold, and you can have all the power you can handle.
Comment by Quincy — April 8, 2007 @ 10:45 pmTurns out Fred Thompson is also Pro-Choice, much to the chagrin of all the Social Cons who’ve been calling him the “Savior” of the GOP these past few weeks.
I uncovered a dusty ole’ copy of REPUBLICAN LIBERTY (RLC Newsletter), from July 1994, in which Thompson clearly states he’s Pro-Choice. (You can see the precise quote at my Blog at http://www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com)
Well, anyway, I uploaded this to RedState.com over the weekend and caused a huge firestorm. My phone is ringing off the hook with calls from interested media reps.
There’s a total of 62 comments so far, on my Blog Entry “Fred Thompson: Pro-Choice Republican” at RedState.com
I’m getting nasty email from Social Cons, and some rather supportive email, as well.
Hey, I like Fred. I’m just pointing out that the Social Cons are supporting one of OUR GUYS, a Pro-Choice/Libertarian Republican. So they need a little truth in advertising.
Fred’s a “LIBERTARIAN” Republican, NOT a Social Con.
Comment by Eric Dondero — April 9, 2007 @ 10:28 amEric,
First of all, I would disagree with the idea that there is some default libertarian position on abortion. But that’s beside the point.
How can you call someone how not only supported by guided through the Senate one of the greatest restrictions on First Amendment rights in decades a libertarian ?
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 9, 2007 @ 10:30 amThe same way he can call Giuliani a libertarian Doug.
Comment by Adam Selene — April 9, 2007 @ 11:18 amAdam,
Good point.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — April 9, 2007 @ 11:50 amEric,
Since you believe that pro-choice Republicans are automatically libertarians; please find the libertarian leanings in Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Susan Collins, Christie Todd Whitman, Jodi Rell, and Mike Bloomberg for me please.
Comment by Kevin — April 9, 2007 @ 12:09 pmChris you said
“Look at his stable record and beliefs…The man has stood completely alone on several votes when both parties collaborated on legislation that overreached.
Which elected official can you name in recent history that has the stones to do that…who do you know has the character to do that?”
Pretty easy answer.
RON PAUL
And Dr. Paul actually believes in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence and that all sections of the government should have to abide by them.
Comment by TerryP — April 10, 2007 @ 1:47 pmADAM: “McCain-Feingold does, indeed, limit my free speech. Are you so ignorant as to think that “special interests†don’t count as people or citizens?”
You’re so occupied with trying to save face you can’t see the forest through the trees. I had entertained the thought of offering you read the article again but, I can see the only point you’ll observe is the one on top of your head.
Comment by Chris — April 17, 2007 @ 9:45 pm“…..Critics have also lambasted the law’s “sham issue ad” provisions that ban the use of corporate funds or union dues for broadcast ads targeting candidates close to an election. But studies of campaign-related ads in 2004 and 2006 showed that the airwaves remained filled with ads sponsored by outside groups or individuals, who were free to use money from PACs and individuals to run any and all ads they wished.”
THIS is NOT against the First Amendment. Had you read the article as any genuine person would you wouldn’t be going on about nonexistant encroachments, Quincy without-a-clue.
You gentlemen can not interpret what you read or you refuse to learn beyond your fixed viewpoint. Either way you’re not worth the time it takes to tell you off!
Comment by Chris — April 17, 2007 @ 9:56 pmChris,
Most of those issue ads were run by 527 groups. Groups that Congress now considers a loophole to the Bipartisan Incumbent Protection Act Of 2003*. They want to put a stop to it, they’re just realizing they didn’t tighten the controls down enough last time.
*Yes, I know the WaPo story you link talks about the relative lack of Congressional seats lost in ‘02 and ‘04, and 22 seats changed hands in ‘06. But any cursory analysis shows that ‘06 was a year where, regardless of finance rules, Republicans were going to take it on the chin.
Comment by Brad Warbiany — April 17, 2007 @ 10:46 pm