Ted Cruz’s Two Takes on Transparency

Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas), laying out his views this week on campaign finance laws, says that donors to political candidates should be made public. But when it comes to donors to advocacy groups, he says, transparency would be a problem.

The difference, Mr. Cruz said, is that disclosure of donations to candidates is a hedge against corrupting public officials. But donors to advocacy groups, such as the National Rifle Association, must be able to give money without fear that people who disagree would use their contributions against them.

Requiring such groups to disclose their donors would “chill free speech,” he said.

Mr. Cruz addressed federal campaign finance law on Wednesday during a hearing of the Senate Rules Committee. Bemoaning contribution limits as unconstitutional, Mr. Cruz said it would be better to allow anyone to give whatever they’d like.

“A far better system would to allow individuals unlimited contributions to candidates and require immediate disclosure,” Mr. Cruz said. Mr. Cruz tweeted a video of his remarks from his Twitter

"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton

"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792

"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

We just witnessed the results of listing donors when the CEO of Mozilla was run off due to giving $1000 to prop 8 in California. $1000, 10 years ago, to a 3rd party group, cost him his ability to make a living. I agree with Cruz. If he had given money to a politician, we could watch if he received any undue benefit from said donation, but giving to a 3rd party influence group is the purest of free speech. Supporting an idea is much different than supporting a person. It’s tough for an idea to be influenced by money but almost any person can be bought, we just have to negotiate a price. Even the purest pol will think twice about his vote if he knows it will cost him millions. Giving money to an advocacy group is just supporting an idea. They won’t change their mind if you don’t give. If donations fall off, they just go out of business. If they get more donations, they have the ability to support the idea more. That’s the beauty of the NRA. They are derided as the evil pro gun group drowning in money. That just means more people support the second Amendment than not. If Soros gives billions to a candidate, we are basically electing Soros. There should be limits and disclosure. As we found out in the Clinton elections, even China got a seat at the American table. What difference would it make if China gave to the NRA or to an abortion group?

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.