The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law
By Mitt Romney: "As I have traveled the country in connection with my campaign for President, I have been inspired by the commitment of countless Americans to shaping the future of America's political system. Their commitment takes many different forms, from distributing literature, to attending a campaign rally, to contributing money to an individual candidate. I applaud this involvement, even if it is not supportive of my candidacy. An informed and active citizenry is vital to the long-term health of our political system.
Washington's back-scratching political class apparently sees it differently. A few years ago, they locked arms around a measure sponsored by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, imposing unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans. Initiatives that had been...."
Washington's back-scratching political class apparently sees it differently. A few years ago, they locked arms around a measure sponsored by Senators John McCain, a Republican, and Russ Feingold, a Democrat, imposing unprecedented restrictions on the political activities of everyday Americans. Initiatives that had been...."
posted by HeavyHanded at
9:38 AM
1 Comments:
Oh, what a great and necessary speech. Congratulations Mitt! Particularly this bit:
‘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. Political spending has been driven into secret corners and more power and influence has been handed to hidden special interests. What is really needed is greater transparency, and disclosure, of campaign contributions – not more restrictions on political speech.’
Now why, pray tell, would we want ‘to reduce the role of money and special interests in our political system’? Because, clearly, those special interests may require special treatment in exchange for their money if and when those to whom it was given get elected into positions of power. In other words, corruption, pay back, influence peddling, bribery.
Why, then, has it so far escaped notice in the discourse over this clear violation of our First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech that by, whatever name, all of these unfortunate practices require the participation of both the corrupter and the corruptee, the payer and the payee, the peddler and the buyer, the briber and the bribee? And is the one any more or less culpable than the other? Does it matter in the least which initiated the sleazy transaction?
Which brings me to this: McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform is nothing more nor less than our own politicians admitting to us that, as a group, they are of such low character, so susceptible to unsavory violations of the public trust, so,…, corruptible,…, that the only solution is to remove temptation from their eager and greedy reach by their denying us our freedom of political speech. After which, presumably, we can trust them explicitly once they gain office, sans any bothersome late minute input or opinions from us, to conduct themselves in only the most exemplary fashion while they manage the billions of dollars they confiscate from us during each and every year of their thereby incumbency protected term/s.
Is that, indeed, the only solution? Reread the above paragraph from Mitt. ‘What is really needed is greater transparency, and disclosure, of campaign contributions’. What is objectionable about that as an alternative to the current horrific violation of our Freedom of Speech? And from whom might such objections arise other than from those politicians whose corruption might thereby be exposed?
Talk about spinning a negative into a positive; nobody does it better than our politicians. ‘We are collectively so corruptible that we must limit your freedom of speech because the only other available alternative would expose our individual corruption.’ It won’t hurt a bit and it is for your own good don’t you see?
By
Anonymous, at 1:08 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home