Letters to the Editor
Gwool
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Free Speech is Free Speech; Remove Caps and go with Full Disclosure
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's money machine]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quick point that seemed to indicate a little bias in the article. Sherer writes that Romney raised $44M which was $10M more than any of Romney's rivals, then he went on to say one in five dollars came from Romney, which is $8.8M.
Either way Romney out raises his competition.
As to speech? You cannot preclude a person from spending money on ads. It's as simple as that. I love the idea of regulation, but it just can't fly against the first amendment.
The impetus behind the current campaign finance laws stem from Watergate. In that regard the real problem with the "Milk Fund" run by Bebe Rebozzo (sp?) in that no one knew where it came from or how it was spent.
The donation limit represents a classic unintended consequence of a well intended program and illustrates why we should think very carefully about sunsetting virtually all public policy so it has to be revisited.
The spending caps were intended to limit money. All it did was make the politicians have to focus more on money. Think about media in 1974 when the first laws were drafted. No internet, no 24/7 cable, etc, etc, etc.
As usual, Congress had hard caps on funds they did not change until a couple of years ago. That's 30 years with fixed caps eroded by inflation which was close to triple (remember the Carter years and stagflation before gasping there, folks). In short, politicians have to spend 3 times as much time and energy raising money now than they did when the laws were enacted.
That's not the intention of the program.
The solution is simple: remove contribution caps, but freeze contributions so many days in advance of primaries and general elections such that there is FULL DISCLOSURE.
If Bill Gates wants to throw me $50 million to run for office, then let it be well known that that's where my cash is coming from and so be it.
If you go to public financing of campaigns, then every nut job out there will be up on the podium diluting the air time provided for VIABLE candidates. In Massachusetts where I live we had one such situation back when Romney won the Governor's office.
On the Democrat side were Robert Reich, Warren Tolman, Shannon O'Brien and Tom Birmingham. Birmingham imploded early, leaving Shannon O'Brien as the "beacon hill insider" against two more left leaning outsiders in Reich and Tolman.
Tolman would not have been in the race were it not for public funding which he accepted as he didn't have a second pot to piss in and had very little name recognition.
Tolman and Reich split the left and O'Brien won the primary as a more traditional conservative democrat.
O'Brien was up against Romney by about 5 points when she swallowed the bait when Tim Russert moderating a debate asked her if she supported NOW's position on abortion. She didn't let him finish the sentence before she paid knee jerk fealt and said yes. Russert then pressed her on asking is she supported no parental notification as NOW did.
Poof! There went some of the Irish Catholic vote practically overnight.
So...
1) I've seen public campaign funding split votes and hand primaries to a minority bloc as a result.
2) You cannot limit a person's right to spend money on advertising given advertising is speech. Period. (I love John McCain and his efforts, here, but it just doesn't pass the constitutional smell test.)
3) The driver spawning the legislation was MORE about disclosure than it was about amounts, and the uplift in contribution caps in the McCain Feingold legislation do not keep pace with inflation, meaning the real dollars raised per person are considerably less today than when enacted. That makes money a greater focus for candidates rather than a lesser one.
4) Remove the caps. Stop contributions a set time before a vote, and mandate instantaneous full disclosure.
5) Well intended government programs invariably have unintended consequences which is why they need constant review. Admitting policy needs ammending does not by definition mean one is against the intent.