ILLINOIS CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS: FREE SPEECH WITH YOUR MONEY MAY LEAVE THE BUILDING
Let's say I make $100,000.00 a year. You make 250,000.00 per year.
We each decide to contribute one percent of our income to a legislative race. I wanna give mine to the democrat. You wanna give yours to the Republican. I can. You can't.
Even though we each made our money lawfully, you can't give your one percent because it exceeds the arbitrary limit the Clean Gene's have decided is evil.
My speech is perfectly legal. You one percent Free Speech is restricted, because the goody two shoes crowd has decided you're too rich. You and your candidate are punished because you have been more financially resourceful and successful than me.
When self-appointed ethicists decide good speech from bad speech, we're in trouble, kiddies.
And, yes, I know our "reformist" Governor likes this crapola. I hope I have a choice with more sense soon.
posted by UMRBlog @ 01:55
11 comments
11 Comments:
I'm not clear how you relate campaign contribution limits to free speech, or why you feel 1% of $100K = 1% of $250K.
But more problematic to me, is that George Soros (or any foreigner) can contribute $25 million by way of these other groups that can advertise (supposedly) separately from the candidate.
If you want to support someone, you state your preference orally or you state it with whatever your wealth or skills allow. It's all expression.
Yeah, I think giving one percent of income is essentially identical behavior.
Now, on re-routed 527/529 contributions, we are in agreement. I'm against limits but I am all for transparency.
In fact, I'd be for dropping the disclosure amount in Illinois to $50.00 when not part of event proceeds. The public should know who's doing what in terms of contributions. The Government shouldn't tell me how much I can give to a candidate.
TYFCB
I don't see how a 10 fold income has anything to do with how much influence/voice you can buy with 10 times as much money.
Why should your income allow you to donate 10X as much? Should you also get ten votes, if you makes ten times as much?
Putting a cap on how much a campaign can spend might make sense, but I'm not sure how people can be limited from spending for their own voice to be heard, at any level.
Still, that our politicians are so bought and paid for hurts us all. Unions have to be paid off, bankers get bailed out, lobbyists run the show on most congressional votes ... it may already be too late.
But the market is up today .. amazing what a few trillion in stimulus/pork will do ... for a few months. Both sides of the aisle will sell us all out and the spending hangover might last a decade. Maybe at the local level, influence is at least more affordable.
Call me skeptical ... :)
1131,
I appreciate that you actually join issue on the topic of the post! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Accepted as a premise that we need to address the Chris Dodd syndrome (Which is no different from the Tom Delay syndrome.). My underlying premise is that sunshine and transparency are all that would be needed for people to make an informed decisions, especially in the age where we can sit at our computers and find out who contributed to the Swifties, for example.
I sense your premise is that we need to regulate the mischief of financial influence. I see that.
We all generate whatever we generate with the yours and days of our lives. If someone who uses his hours and days to generate wealth wants to use his wealth to express support for a cause or candidate, to prevent him from doing so is to prohibit him using the hours and days of his life to support his beliefs.
Capping donations includes the inherent admission that somebody (legislature) is setting an arbitrary threshold for how much influence is too much. That is inherently discriminatory against folks who have acquired some wealth. I spend a great deal of my time helping poor or minority people who are disadvantaged by government. I don't like it any better when someone is discriminated against for being financially successful, which is really all that happens when you cap contributions.
Again, if my 1% is legal and yours isn't, it's difficult to see how we are benefitting from equal protection of our mutual civil rights.
Thank you for your thoughtful input.
Good topic. What, if any, limits on campaign contributions do you think should be in place? Should foreigners be able to dump cash into a US presidential election?
What about government financing of candidates, like the McCain/Feingold variety or what Durbin is proposing?
UDN DAVE,
Absolutely no foreigners, including permanent resident aliens. If I could figure out a constitutional way to do do it, I'd bar lobbyists for foreign states and for foreign "wealth" funds.
Ugh! Hate "public financing" and political checkoff schemes. I love the little box where it says the checkoff doesn't increase your tax--What Horseflop! Of course it does--just not this year.
All that being said, however, I cannot abide the interference with a perfectly law-abiding American's freedom of expression that I see inherent in a "cap" scheme.
Shine sunlight on conflicted givers but enforce disclosure, not limits.
What did McCain/Feingold give us but more "independent" committees, accountable to no one?
I think a bunch of people would agree with me that MoveOn.org's regrettable advertising and the repulsive Swifties were the product of this poorly conceived scheme.
TYFCB
UDN Dave: What is Durbin Proposing? We all know he wasn't elected into office back in 1982 by local money. I'd like to to know the nature of his proposal now that he has his.
IF there is a cap, it makes no sense to me that someone with more income would have a different donation level, which is what your percentage idea would say. That seems completely contrary to the whole concept of making each voice more equal.
But there are plenty of ways that the wealthy have a greater voice, whether they get their wealth by inheritance, hard work, theft or political corruption. Wealth/might does not make right.
Billions in taxpayer dollars have gone to GM, and the fat cat retirement benefits will be paid for by struggling average joe, because the mafia, I mean union bosses, paid up big. They have a much bigger voice because they gave some $80 million.
I think the bad people with tons of money will outnumber the good guys like you, that may use their financial powers for good.
Ideally our elections can keep in check the influence of big money, though that seems a pipe dream at this point.
The system has been gamed. Special interests rule the day, and they may well be foreign. Why did Obama campaign in Europe? (straying a little from the topic)
Transparency may help .. we should certainly know what influence is being bought, but that can be hidden, and our congress seems unresponsive to what people want anyway.
Don't we KNOW that most of our politicians are bought and paid for? I hope there are s few patriots remaining.
Anon 1649
Just for clarity, I used the percentage illustration to show the effect of the proposed text of HB 24 which proposes a hard cap of $2300.00
The bill makes no mention of percentages.
TYFCB
UMR, Your right,
Lets let this Governor thrash around a bit, then we'll get rid of him and elect a new King.
Hey, the House and Senate didn't go anywhere, they are still in control.
I like your Blog man, but nothing good is going to happen "till Madigan and Daley die.
Durbin was floating a proposal to make tax money available for congressional races, kind of like the McCain/Feingold bill did for presidential races.
Post a Comment
<< Home