Posted on 02/02/2012 7:53:21 PM PST by SmithL
"Hell is paved with good intentions," George Bernard Shaw wrote, "not bad ones." And Shaw never wrote about the unintended consequences of American campaign finance law or the Florida GOP primary, which provide ample proof that the more good-government types try to regulate money and politics, the more convoluted campaign finance becomes.
Mitt Romney won 46 percent of the vote in Florida; Newt Gingrich 32 percent. Campaigns that support Romney outspent pro-Gingrich groups $15 million versus $4 million. According to Politico, the pro-Romney PAC Restore Our Future spent more ($8.5 million) on ads than the Romney campaign ($7 million). The pro-Newt PAC, Winning Our Future, spent $2 million, twice the campaign's $1 million outlay.
Why did the super PACs spend more than the candidates' own campaigns? Washington passed laws designed to curb the amount of money that big donors could shovel into presidential elections. It's a noble cause, but like passing a law against water flowing downhill. It was only a matter of time before election lawyers would figure out the loopholes and courts would stand up for political free speech. Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unions and corporations have a right to unlimited political speech, which meant independent political campaigns not tied to candidates can go big casino.
It was the right ruling, according to senior attorney Steve Simpson of the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice. But it created a problem: Candidates, Simpson noted, remain "saddled with contribution limits" - individuals can give a candidate no more than $2,500 per election - "while the super PACs can raise whatever they want. As a result, it's difficult for the candidates to compete with super PACs."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unions and corporations have a right to unlimited political speech, which meant independent political campaigns not tied to candidates can go big casino.
It was the right ruling, according to senior attorney Steve Simpson of the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice. But it created a problem: Candidates, Simpson noted, remain “saddled with contribution limits” - individuals can give a candidate no more than $2,500 per election - “while the super PACs can raise whatever they want.
It was the wrong ruling. Since corporations aren’t even living beings, they can’t possibly be citizens. Non citizens have no right to influence our elections. Are there any limits on these organizations? Can a corporation that is mostly owned by China spend as much as they want on our elections? This primary has proven that this country is no longer for the people or by the people. They no longer count except at tax time.
Personally I like the balance it brings. Unions had free, unfettered spending limits, while corporations had their hands tied behind their backs. If you don’t like what either has to say, change the channel or prerecord and skip the advertisements.
Personally I like the balance it brings. Unions had free, unfettered spending limits, while corporations had their hands tied behind their backs. If you don’t like what either has to say, change the channel or prerecord and skip the advertisements.
The solution was to limit the unions. Now we have so diluted the voice of the citizens that government will become a total prostitute to the will of groups with big money instead of the casual slut it has traditionally been. Are you comfortable with foreigners making huge donations?
I just watch a wonderful attack ad (a minute ago) against Obama on Fox that would have never have aired if it wasn’t for this new rule. It attacked all his risky investments in alternate energy. I think it is a good thing to not only counter the unions, but the main stream media. Facts were presented during the ad I could not have seen in a 1,000 of hours of news on any major network. The vast majority of ads will be conservative and that is why the left hates the new rules.
The vast majority of ads will be conservative and that is why the left hates the new rules.
It takes a lot of faith to say that. I hope I am wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
