Libertarian Party: Campaign Finance Reform Ruling is Assault on Free Speech

Libertarian Party press release ^ | December 11, 2003 | George Getz

[Commie Basher]

====================================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
====================================
For release: December 11, 2003
====================================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
Phone: (202) 333-0008
====================================

High court's ruling is all-out assault on right to engage in politics, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Libertarian Party, which is one of the plaintiffs that challenged the campaign finance law upheld on Tuesday by the Supreme Court, has denounced the ruling as an "all-out assault on the right of every American to engage in the political process."

"Why not just outlaw elections and get it over with?" said Geoffrey Neale, the Libertarian Party's national chair. "The Supreme Court has just given incumbent politicians the power to financially cripple their competitors and, in the process, award themselves lifetime jobs."

In a 5-4 ruling that shocked advocacy groups across the political spectrum, the Supreme Court endorsed key provisions of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance law. Specifically, the court upheld a ban on "soft money" contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions, as well the law's prohibition on running certain political advertisements within close proximity to an election.

But Libertarians point out that McCain-Feingold was nothing more than an incumbent protection act in the first place -- and that the court's ruling was tantamount to outlawing political competition.

"Running for office and communicating a message aren't free," Neale said. "So making it illegal to raise money to buy political ads, and banning the ads during the period when they're most effective, is tantamount to outlawing the message itself. That's a crime against the First Amendment as well as an affront to the democratic process."

Incumbent politicians already enjoy powerful advantages, Neale pointed out, such as name recognition and the ability to attract news media, taxpayer-financed staffs and office space, and the franking privilege.

The so-called campaign finance reform act was merely an attempt to eliminate the only weapon that many challengers have: contributions freely given by individuals or groups that share their views, he noted.

Acknowledging that the stated goal of the legislation was to clean up politics, Neale said: "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor pointed out that 'corruption, and in particular the appearance of corruption,' is rampant in Washington -- and of course, she's right.

"But a free-flowing, robust political debate isn't the problem; it's the solution. The only way to dislodge an entrenched, corrupt politician is to allow competing candidates, and anyone else who so chooses, to publicly criticize them and offer voters a better alternative.

"By upholding McCain-Feingold, the Supreme Court has merely guaranteed that corrupt politicians will stay in office for a longer period of time."

In March 1992, the Libertarian Party signed on as a co-plaintiff in McConnell v FEC, the lawsuit spearheaded by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell that sought to overturn the campaign finance reform law.

The party argued that the law would have a devastating impact on its activities by eliminating certain sources of revenue and imposing significant regulatory and administrative burdens.

For example, the law prohibits the organization from accepting donations of more than $25,000 from any individual; prevents it from taking money from organizations that are not "recognized political committees," so it cannot sell ads in its party newspaper to nonprofit corporations or incorporated businesses; and cannot accept funds for memberships or literature from its own state affiliates, unless they also comply with the law's onerous regulations.

However, the party was vindicated by one aspect of Tuesday's ruling, Neale added, when the court struck down the provision of the law banning minors from making contributions to political parties.

[Southack]

Well, I never saw this one coming. This was too over the top, I thought. They'd have to overrule it, so it makes sense to sign it.

Ouch. Live and learn. Lets not try that stunt again.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

They'd have to overrule it, so it makes sense to sign it.

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Like Bush, I would have lost good money betting that the SCOTUS would have easily overturned the most egregious parts of CFR"

So, Bush merely 'lost a bet' on this one!!

Bush KNEW that the SC was going to rule this way.

[Jim Robinson]

Wish I had the answers to grooming up and coming presidents, but I don't. All I can say is we've got to bring new blood into the system and I'm afraid that has to start locally and build up. Odds are you won't be successful trying to bring in new blood straight to the presidency. I'm sure there are people out there building the short lists of governors, senators, etc, that have the best potential, but I don't have access to them. Those with ideas need to start bringing them forth. We desperately need a conservative winner.

As to the AWB, well, we'll just have to wait and see. I know the gun-grabbing Democrats want to extend it, but I believe the majority of the Republicans don't.

Vote out the RATS!

[At _War_With_Liberals]

And the Bush admin is using the War on Terror, in part, to get away with their shenanigans.

If there was no war, the neo con agenda would be DOA.

[The_Eaglet]

So it's okay to sign an un-Constitutional piece of legislation into law if you're sure the SCOTUS will strike it down? That's a little unnerving to me.

It's also a waste of our tax dollars on the time spent on what is at best a bureaucratic exercise, and the net effect (at best) would be a draining of the pocketbooks of patriotic citizens in litigation expenses.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

The RNC has not indicated any interest in a move to the right. So it will not happen. Gillespie has to go.

[Jim Robinson]

Whatever. The Democrats voted the thing in. The vast majority of the Republicans voted no. The president should not have signed it but he did. Now we need to figure out how to get rid of it, but I'll be damned if it's going to make me want to toss Bush or allow the Democrats to retake control. Had my fill of Democrats for this lifetime.

[The_Eaglet]

Haven't you had your fill of treacherous Republicans?

[Jim Robinson]

Sheesh. Those where Southack's words not Bush's.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

I just keep thinking back to the lessons learned in '92 and '94, and I believe that those lessons are totally lost on the current GOP leadership.

I think that Bush is going to win in '04, but I think the ultimate price for that win won't be realized until '08 when Hillary becomes the first woman elected to the Presidency. And if the GOP continues its embrace of the Democrat agenda, it's gonna happen.

The Dem's can't field someone in '04 that can beat Bush, and they know it. But it's much easier to win the White House when there is no incumbent running for re-election. I think they're more than happy to slowly drag GWB to their end of the spectrum and then pounce in '08 after four more years of conservatives being hung out to dry by a clueless GOP.

[John R. (Bob) Locke]

Had my fill of Democrats for this lifetime.

What have they done to you that the GOP hasn't also done?

That's a serious question.

[SUSSA]

As to the AWB, well, we'll just have to wait and see. I know the gun-grabbing Democrats want to extend it, but I believe the majority of the Republicans don't.

The majority of Republicans didn’t want to pass CFR or Mediscam either. Bush twisted arms, bribed, and bullied to get them passed. What makes you think he won’t do the same with the ugly gun ban?

[At _War_With_Liberals]

There are two parties in 2003. The socialist international Democrats and the liberal Republicans.

Like it or not, that is the reality.

The socialist Dems in the US have allied themselves with the international socialists. I think that the combination is dangerous, especially for our sovereignty.

The Republicans are running left. There is no answer that will help us, at least in the short run.

All possible ends are disastrous. I realize the lib Republicans are the only ones standing between us and international socialism, but I believe it is inevitable anyway on our current path with Republican leadership.

The more elections that go by, the less the odds we can recover.

There is no answer.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"Those where Southack's words not Bush's."

You are right. I am a little heated up about the insanity this week. All of the illegal alien amnesty and SS talk put me over the edge.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

How do we know he won't raise taxes and declare amnesty after his reelection?

And what about the debt? There is not going to be another tech boom to pay it off.

[The_Eaglet]

There are two parties in 2003. The socialist international Democrats and the liberal Republicans.

There is time to change that for 2004, which is another reason why I support the Constitution Party. I probably will vote to re-elect Marsha Blackburn to the House if she follows through on her stands for the right to life and tax relief, but Mike Peroutka has positions worth supporting and promoting, and I would like to see him or someone like him be elected President.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Excellent post Jim. It rebuffs what I've said all from the outset of the USSC decision. This bill was passed at a time when Tom Daschle was in control of the Senate. Tom Daschle screams their message didn't get out to the people, he's out of a job, Bush compromises with a majority Democratic Senate, and the bill gets the nod from the liberals on the USSC with the deeply rooted Conservative, Scalia, issuing a scathing dissent opinion. One last point about the Senate, the heavily weighted Democratic CFR legislation was one of the few pieces of legislation in the Senate that didn't endure that Democratic logjam. Finally, I don't recall the Senate's Constitutional scholar Robert Byrd condemning the bill's squashing of the 1st Amendment. He has a tendency of pulling out his pocketbook sized Constitution from his inside pocket, but he didn't in this instance.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

I'll check it out.

[Jim Robinson]

LOL. Yeah, I've had my fill of all politicians. Unfortunately, they're the only kind of people who run for office and get elected. Also, unfortunately, 99% of the elected ones are going to be either Democrat or Republican. And again, unfortunately, the party that has a higher count of its members seated in each chamber, House and or Senate, gets the best shot at enacting its legislative agenda. The minority party is basically relegated to the cloakroom. And, furthermore, in the very rare case that a third party or independent candidate does happen to get elected, he's going to caucus with either the Democrat side or the Republican side so it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Thus the vast majority of the Americans who vote are naturally going to side with either the Democrat Party or the Republican Party and even the majority of those who don't side with one or the other are probably going to pick one or the other on election day anyway.

And in case you've never read any of my posts I'll sum it up for you. I just don't happen to care much for the party that includes abortion, homosexualism, atheism, environmentalism, socialism, subjugation to the United Nations, disarmament of the American people, etc, etc, in its party platform. And that would be the Democrat Party.

No thank you sir. I will stand with the Republicans. At least the majority of them are opposed to most of the same evils I'm opposed to.