SPRINGFIELD AGAIN DISCUSSING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LIMITS: LIMITING MONEY IS LIMITING SPEECH
Bunch of do-gooders in Springfield have proposed campaign contribution limits saying that Illinois is "one of only four states" which don't cap campaign contributions. Well, good. That means Illinois is one of the only states that continues to believe in free speech.
Don't mistake transparency for amount. I think any significant contribution should be reported and available to the public. I think with modern drill-down technology there's really no reason that anonymous political committees can't be more transparent. But, when you talk about limiting how a citizen chooses to apply his wealth, or his time or his car or his shoe leather to get involved in politics, we part company. There is not material difference between how an individual giving his or her time and giving his or her money. Usually, our money is a product of our time and talents. Who's to say that we can give away our time and talent to support a candidate, but we can't give away the result of that time and talent? If one is unconstitutional or at least repressive, then so's the other.
Wanna talk about lowering the disclosure amount? You've got my attention. Wanna talk about excluding corporations from the process (Such as the Parking Deck that gives my republican friends so much heartburn)? We can talk? Care to make candidates file a more detailed disclosure of their possible conflicts of interest? Go for it. Most of the time my heart is with the do-gooders (Hell, even as we speak, I'm punching around on the calculator, trying to figure out my carbon footprint. I think it's 11W). But, when a human being in Illinois wants to give away after-tax money to promote a candidate he or she believes in, that is behavior to be encouraged, not banned. We want people to take an interest in government but we want to limit their ability to do that with something they earned and own? How does that promote citizen participation? How does that improve anything? It sounds like class warfare to me. Cheesy tactic by either side.
Labels: Ethics, ILLINOIS POLITICS
posted by UMRBlog @ 04:40
8 comments
8 Comments:
Bravo !
And the parking deck is Bullsh*t ! Darn you Durbin !
*shakes hand at the sky
But hindsight is 20-20 !
Whatya mean? Our campaign theme song was "Deck the Halls."
FaLaLaLa
TYFCB
The current political system is broken in my opinion - we should be contemplating ideas and not who has the most money or who has raised the most money. I have never been impressed by a candidate just because he or she has raised a lot of money – but that is the only thing the parties even worry about. Jil Tracy had virtually no political experience, but the fact that she is a multi-millionaire gave her instant credibility. That credibility was based on her money-laced electability and not her ideas. I am not attacking Tracy, but if money is the criteria and not ideas – the system is dysfunctional. Just as capitalism depends on production of the best ideas – so does democracy. We have decided that monopolies are not acceptable in our economic system, but we allow them to exist politically. This retards growth and crushes innovation – something that is absent in our current political system. The system has produced candidates that are mirror images of each other – virtually no variety or innovation for that matter. This has left us with a slate of causious candidates who are more interested in protecting their image and list of donors. There are significant issues to be discussed, but God help us, the current system is not structured to deal with the issues. Campaign consultants run the show now and they command big money. They are completely dependent on the ludicrous amounts of money in the system. Candidates spend all of their time raising money and protecting incumbency. The only way to bring sanity back to the system is to limit the money and abolish all of the gerrymandered districts at every level. You many think this limits freedoms, but have there not been cases where the courts have ruled that donating money is not the same as free speech? Correct me if I am wrong. If you can explain to me how we can get to a point where an honest discussion of the ideas is possible without limiting campaign contributions I will listen. I just do not think it is possible. Would it not be great to have the candidates completely done raising money in a few months and have the remainder of the time in an election cycle to actually go out a listen and respond to voters? Something might actually get accomplished. The problems that face us today are daunting – give me a political gambler or maverick any day or the current slate of safe, predictable political clones. When gas reaches $4.00 a gallon or, God forbid, a dirty-bomb is set off on US soil it will be too late to find candidates that think outside of the box, but at least the affluent will not have lost their right to give money to candidates to protect their interests.
Rob,
You're mixing a great many issues together into kind of a giant stew.
First, if we cap money from individual givers, all we'll have for candidates is wealthy people. That is probably an undesirable outcome, at least for those of our politicial beliefs.
Secondly, most of the financial mischief in Illinois comes from Corporate giving and "Cause" Foundations. (See, Myerscough, just for an example.).
Finally, you are making a familiar argument, one Ashcroft and the bushies just loved. We have to give up some liberty (in this case, to give) in order to preserve our society of ordered liberty. Even from someone whose heart I know is pure, I can't accept that argument. If we have to be more like "them" to keep on being "us", then there is ultimately no difference between "them" and "us".
A useful starter focus should be on corporate and foundation giving.
Oh, and you are right, the Federal Courts have upheld the FEC Caps but under a legal theory that would not necessitate a similar outcome in State Courts or in cases about State Elections.
TYFCB
Tony: Rob has a tendency to be long winded but I like what he says. I hope he has the opportunity to run and be elected to office one day. People like him are the reason to get involved in politics. A person that actually cares about making the community and Country better for all of us. Not just a core group of constituents.
T-Bone,
Agreed on all counts. Pure of heart and excellent inventory of the modern political scene. I just don't think limiting individual freedoms is a path to improvement. More sunshine or more corporate and committee limitations? Sign me up!
Tribune bought, Cubs will have new ownership!
I am a ROB fan too !
He is no longer the bass player for Blind Mellon.
his only bad electable issue is he is close to Paul D .........
he'll lose the Christian right and the tree hugging left right there .
LOL
* rob will snicker at that
Post a Comment
<< Home