[Unmarked Package]

Steven Muscatello, a contributor at EvangelicalsForMitt.org, posted the following comment tying Mitt Romney's editorial to current events in the U.S. Supreme Court:

The topic is especially fitting today, as the Supreme Court heard arguments in an important free speech case involving pro-life activists in Wisconsin. The SCOTUSblog has a great round-up of the arguments. I especially liked Justice Anthony Kennedy's response to an exchange between the Wisconsin Right to Life group’s lawyer, James Bopp, and Justice John Paul Stevens:

Under brief questioning from Justice John Paul Stevens, WRTL's attorney argued that grass-roots groups want the right to speak out during campaigns in hopes of influencing even candidates that they can assume are not in harmony with those groups' aims. "At least people should have the opportunity to engage in grassroots lobbying," Bopp said, immediately drawing this approving comment from Justice Kennedy: "Is that called democracy?"

As you'll recall, Mr. Bopp is a strong supporter of Gov. Romney's candidacy.

[Unmarked Package]

((( MITT ROMNEY PING )))

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ ON ] or [ OFF ] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[PGalt]

Outstanding post! Hooray Mitt Romney!

Can someone interview McCain or Feingold and find out THEIR take on this case before the USSC? After all John did announce his candidacy today, and he might want to talk about the crowning achievement of his congressional career.

[Political Junkie Too]

The original intent of McCain-Feingold was to reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system. But on this too it has been a failure.

If you really want to do this, then start by repealing the 17th amendment and eliminate 33 of the most expensive elections that occur every two years.

That would just leave the 4-year presidential election cycle and the 2-year House elections, which IMO isn't enough to support national bloc-party politics.

The number of candidates running for President, plus the effects of the electoral colege, would limit how much influence nation-wide organizations have on grass-roots causes. The small constituencies of the 435 House districts would make it impractical for national organizations to divert national funding to small campaigns for mostly unknown candidates without having the larger and regular Senate campaign machines as the engine of bloc politics.

Repealing the 17th amendment would be the elegant campaign finance reform.

-PJ

[PsyOp]

I thought McCain and Feingold were the major flaws...

[ellery]

I like Mitt, and at this point he’s my second choice. However, this looks like another flip-flop.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romneys-about-face-on-campaign-funding-2007-02-08.html

A review of Romney’s public statements from his 1994 senatorial and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns reveal that he once touted stringent campaign-finance modifications.

A Boston Globe article from July 1994 reported that Romney publicly advocated placing spending limits on congressional campaigns and abolishing political action committees (PACs).

-snip-

During remarks before the Burlington (Mass.) Business Roundtable in 1994, Romney spoke like the committed reformers who later enacted sweeping national reforms in Congress.

“I understand Ted Kennedy will spend about $10 million to be reelected — he’s been in 32 years, $10 million. I think that’s wrong because — and that’s not his own money, that’s all from other people,” Romney said during the 1994 presentation, which was aired by C-SPAN. “And to get that kind of money you’ve got to cozy up as an incumbent to all the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members. And that kind of relationship has an influence on the way you’re gonna vote.”

Romney lost his race against Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.). When he ran for governor eight years later, Romney again proposed dramatic changes to campaign-finance rules.

The Quincy Patriot Ledger and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette reported in the fall of 2002 that Romney proposed taxing political contributions to finance publicly funded campaigns.

“Mr. Romney campaigned in favor of clean elections, which provides public money to candidates for state office who meet strict fundraising requirements,” the Telegram & Gazette reported. “But he suggested an alternative funding method. Instead of providing campaign funds from state coffers, his plan would tap 10 percent of the fundraising of candidates who choose to raise money privately.”

Kevin Madden, Romney’s campaign spokesman, declined to comment about campaign finance proposals his boss made in 1994 and 2002.

[TheLion]

Semms like Mitt has something worthwhile to say every day!

[FormerACLUmember]

The two most fundamental flaws in McCain-Feingold are McCain and Feingold.

[WFTR]

This kind of writing is good for Mr. Romney. There's nothing particularly new or brilliant here, but it's the kind of good, solid conservatism that we need in a candidate. The fact that Mr. Romney took different positions in the past remains troubling, and if you have another clarification on his past positions, now might be a good time to post it on the thread. I'm not trying to hurt him by mentioning the change, but the changes are going to be a challenge.

Bill

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for the post. This is very clear to me. I notice that Romney presses the right buttons in his choice of example too. He is saying all the right things now, and I’m grateful for that.