We knew this was coming: Moveon.org and its friends are pumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into a new ad campaign against Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, on the heels of a similar ad attacking Senator John McCain. The LA Times blog reports:
Campaign Money Watch, the group that bills itself as a nonpartisan advocate for campaign finance reform, is attacking Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
The Washington-based group is spending almost $400,000 on the attack, which includes a tough new television ad and website.
In filing with the Federal Election Commission, Campaign Money Watch disclosed a new batch of donors paying for the attack on the Kentucky senator. Its biggest contributor was the liberal online advocacy group, MoveOn.org, which gave $400,000.
Campaign Money Watch received $130,000 from billionaire Jerome Kohlberg, a founder of the private equity firm Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., and $30,000 from Communication Workers of America.
Campaign Money Watch's parent group describes itself as a "nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving America’s campaign finance laws."
Previously, Campaign Money Watch attacked John McCain, who co-wrote the current campaign McCain-Feingold finance law.
Isn't it ironic that McCain -- the one member of Congress whom so-called "campaign finance reformers" should love -- was attacked on this issue?
We are not holding our breath waiting for this so-called "nonpartisan organization" to launch an ad campaign against Senator Obama for willfully breaking his pledge to comply with public financing requirements and fundraising limitations. No doubt the money men from Moveon.org, KKR and the union would object.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label campaign finance. Show all posts
Friday, October 24, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
McConnell Vindicated on Campaign Finance
Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has long opposed "campaign finance reform" on the grounds that it limits free speech. Yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling suggests that Justice Samuel Alito -- and perhaps a majority of the Court -- agree with McConnell.
The Court struck down the "millionaire's amendment" that waived the contributions limit for candidates running against millionaires who self-fund their own campaign.
As McClatchey noted, McConnell's opposition to the "millionaire's amendment" comes at a steep cost:
Ironically, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling gives McConnell's Democratic opponent, Bruce Lunsford, the leeway to fund a stronger campaign against the senator, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the Cook Political Report.
"The ruling will allow Lunsford to spend as much money as he wants without any recourse from McConnell," Duffy said.
Lunsford, a wealthy Louisville businessman, has coffers capable of bankrolling his campaign. Though he initially wrote in filing papers to the FEC that he doesn't intend to spend his own money, Lunsford became the first Kentucky candidate ever to trigger the millionaire's amendment when he pumped more than $1 million of his own money into his bid for U.S. Senate.
During his unsuccessful 2003 and 2007 runs for governor, Lunsford pumped $14 million of his own money into the campaigns.
After the toxicity of Hillary Clinton, and the endless parsing and backpedaling of Barack Obama, McConnell's respect for the first amendment reminds us that public servants are called to put country ahead of their own hides.
The Court struck down the "millionaire's amendment" that waived the contributions limit for candidates running against millionaires who self-fund their own campaign.
As McClatchey noted, McConnell's opposition to the "millionaire's amendment" comes at a steep cost:
Ironically, Thursday's Supreme Court ruling gives McConnell's Democratic opponent, Bruce Lunsford, the leeway to fund a stronger campaign against the senator, said Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor with the Cook Political Report.
"The ruling will allow Lunsford to spend as much money as he wants without any recourse from McConnell," Duffy said.
Lunsford, a wealthy Louisville businessman, has coffers capable of bankrolling his campaign. Though he initially wrote in filing papers to the FEC that he doesn't intend to spend his own money, Lunsford became the first Kentucky candidate ever to trigger the millionaire's amendment when he pumped more than $1 million of his own money into his bid for U.S. Senate.
During his unsuccessful 2003 and 2007 runs for governor, Lunsford pumped $14 million of his own money into the campaigns.
After the toxicity of Hillary Clinton, and the endless parsing and backpedaling of Barack Obama, McConnell's respect for the first amendment reminds us that public servants are called to put country ahead of their own hides.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Right To Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is
In an op-ed in today's Courier-Journal, Edward T. "Ned" Bonnie makes an impassioned plea for adoption of "The Fair Elections Now Act", which is sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). No doubt Bonnie truly believes, as he contends, that public financing of elections "would create a level playing field for all candidates and give ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections." But good intentions do not always make for good public policy and constitutional laws.
One of the central problems with Bonnie's argument is that the Specter and Durbin bill, if enacted, would indeed give us "ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections", but it is a stake we shouldn't want: namely, being coerced by the government to pay with our tax dollars for the campaign speech of candidates with whom we disagree.
Nor should we want the "level playing field for all candidates" that Bonnie apparently envisions: namely, government bureaucrats determining which candidates have too much financial support and redistributing taxpayer money to "worthy" candidates who haven't been able to attract sufficient campaign contributions the old-fashioned way.
Bonnie says he "fundamentally disagree[s], as a lawyer and a citizen, with the notion that how much money one has or can raise determines their political worth." But how is that we, in a capitalist system, usually determine the value of something? By how much we are willing to pay for it, of course. And there is nothing wrong with that. How much voters are willing to contribute to a candidate is a direct reflection of how strongly they support that candidate, just as how much we are willing to pay for an automobile shows how badly we want to drive that automobile.
Indeed, the fact that Senator Barack Obama is raising record amounts of money for his campaign while Senator Hillary Clinton is having to loan $5 million to hers speaks volumes as to where the momentum has swung in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The money count for those respective candidates sends a loud and clear message as to their level of support by the electorate. It tells us the extent to which voters are willing to put their money where their candidate's mouth is. Surely that counts for speech as much as does Bonnie's op-ed piece, for example.
Furthermore, Bonnie's contention that too much is spent on political campaigns simply doesn't square with the facts put in proper perspective. We just witnessed the most-watched Super Bowl in history, during which companies shelled out millions of dollars per advertisement to hawk everything from beer to laundry detergent. The amount of money spent on such commercial speech dwarfs the relatively paltry amounts spent on political speech by candidates running for office. For instance, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's $9 million-plus campaign war chest would buy maybe 3-4 Super Bowl ads.
We all should agree that political campaigns are more important than the Super Bowl -- even darn good games like the one played Sunday night. Shouldn't we pay more attention to who we elect to political office than which beer we buy? So why shouldn't more money, not less, be spent on political speech, given how much is spent by advertisers on commercial speech?
And what's wrong with having political speech financed entirely through private voluntary contributions, so long as there is transparency in the process through full disclosure of donors? It surely beats forcing taxpayers to pay for it. Moreover, the knowledge of who financially supports whom and for how much gives a voter insight as to whether his or her interests are aligned with a particular candidate.
Wealth is scattered so broadly in this country, and held by so many different people of diverse political viewpoints, that there is no danger of one mainstream political ideology unfairly having an upper hand in the raising of funds for political campaigns. And a moneyed candidate devoid of many good ideas cannot "buy" an election: just ask Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who flopped as a presidential candidate despite having raised tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
In the end, the "ordinary people" whom Bonnie seeks to protect have constitutional rights to contribute to political campaigns and run for political office through funds collected from other "ordinary people". I, for one, don't want to lose those rights through legislation passed by incumbent politicians that would seriously undermine the ability of "ordinary people" to challenge those incumbents in future elections, and force "ordinary people" like me to pay for other people's speech.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
One of the central problems with Bonnie's argument is that the Specter and Durbin bill, if enacted, would indeed give us "ordinary people a stake in the financing of elections", but it is a stake we shouldn't want: namely, being coerced by the government to pay with our tax dollars for the campaign speech of candidates with whom we disagree.
Nor should we want the "level playing field for all candidates" that Bonnie apparently envisions: namely, government bureaucrats determining which candidates have too much financial support and redistributing taxpayer money to "worthy" candidates who haven't been able to attract sufficient campaign contributions the old-fashioned way.
Bonnie says he "fundamentally disagree[s], as a lawyer and a citizen, with the notion that how much money one has or can raise determines their political worth." But how is that we, in a capitalist system, usually determine the value of something? By how much we are willing to pay for it, of course. And there is nothing wrong with that. How much voters are willing to contribute to a candidate is a direct reflection of how strongly they support that candidate, just as how much we are willing to pay for an automobile shows how badly we want to drive that automobile.
Indeed, the fact that Senator Barack Obama is raising record amounts of money for his campaign while Senator Hillary Clinton is having to loan $5 million to hers speaks volumes as to where the momentum has swung in the Democratic presidential nomination process. The money count for those respective candidates sends a loud and clear message as to their level of support by the electorate. It tells us the extent to which voters are willing to put their money where their candidate's mouth is. Surely that counts for speech as much as does Bonnie's op-ed piece, for example.
Furthermore, Bonnie's contention that too much is spent on political campaigns simply doesn't square with the facts put in proper perspective. We just witnessed the most-watched Super Bowl in history, during which companies shelled out millions of dollars per advertisement to hawk everything from beer to laundry detergent. The amount of money spent on such commercial speech dwarfs the relatively paltry amounts spent on political speech by candidates running for office. For instance, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's $9 million-plus campaign war chest would buy maybe 3-4 Super Bowl ads.
We all should agree that political campaigns are more important than the Super Bowl -- even darn good games like the one played Sunday night. Shouldn't we pay more attention to who we elect to political office than which beer we buy? So why shouldn't more money, not less, be spent on political speech, given how much is spent by advertisers on commercial speech?
And what's wrong with having political speech financed entirely through private voluntary contributions, so long as there is transparency in the process through full disclosure of donors? It surely beats forcing taxpayers to pay for it. Moreover, the knowledge of who financially supports whom and for how much gives a voter insight as to whether his or her interests are aligned with a particular candidate.
Wealth is scattered so broadly in this country, and held by so many different people of diverse political viewpoints, that there is no danger of one mainstream political ideology unfairly having an upper hand in the raising of funds for political campaigns. And a moneyed candidate devoid of many good ideas cannot "buy" an election: just ask Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who flopped as a presidential candidate despite having raised tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
In the end, the "ordinary people" whom Bonnie seeks to protect have constitutional rights to contribute to political campaigns and run for political office through funds collected from other "ordinary people". I, for one, don't want to lose those rights through legislation passed by incumbent politicians that would seriously undermine the ability of "ordinary people" to challenge those incumbents in future elections, and force "ordinary people" like me to pay for other people's speech.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Fischer's First Stump Speech
Greg Fischer made his first campaign speech last night, and as he acknowledged, it was long and unpolished (but better than his announcement video).
A few points jumped out. He spoke with great nostalgia about growing up in the '60's, which he recalls as a time of "hope" and "no cynicism," when "there was a feeling that we could do anything in the country."
Childhood recollections don't often reflect reality. What's more troubling about Fischer's recollections, however, is that they don't reflect much knowledge of history. He completely forgets the Vietnam war, and the Democrats' rush to cut and run, and the shameful way in which they treated our troops upon return. He forgets the epidemic of drug use that "flowered" under Democrat control characterized by slack law enforcement and judges who believed in "rehabilitation" rather than punishment. He forgets the damage that the Great Society wrecked upon our economy and the families of the inner cities.
Fischer purports to catalogue Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's "values," in particular "greed." Apparently speaking from personal experience, Fischer states that "if you have enough money you can do whatever you please." (Like buying a U.S. Senate seat?)
He then goes on to state that McConnell is the "wealthiest Senator in the U.S. Senate." That statement is so far from the truth that it's laughable, so Fischer is quick to explain that McConnell's wealth is in terms of the money he has raised for his campaign. It's an awkward argument for Richie Rich -- especially coupled with Fischer's complaint that he is "tired of the obstacles for the average person to get involved."
Of course the biggest such obstacle is money. Again, that's no issue for Fischer because he can finance his campaign by writing a personal check. But it is a huge obstacle to anyone -- like McConnell -- who is not personally wealthy.
As a result of campaign finance "reform," someone like Fischer can spend as much of his own money as he wants to buy the primary. If the first amendment was unimpeded by campaign finance "reform," a candidate like Andrew Horne could simply call up George Soros and get a big ole contribution of thousands or millions. As a result of campaign finance "reform," we have less ideological diversity, not more.
This effect on the speech opportunities of potential candidates is one reason why McConnell has opposed "reform" measures like McCain-Feingold, or the Alien and Sedition Act of 2001.
Fischer benefits from a system that allows a rich guy to write a check to his personal campaign for one million dollars. In fairness, a competing candidate should be allowed to ask ten friends to donate $100,000. Instead, that candidate can only raise $25,000 from 10 friends. Nor can this be justified on the grounds that it forces candidates to speak to the middle-class, because self-funding millionaires can -- and do -- end run the system.
Indeed, Fischer concludes by boasting that he's "gonna have the financial resources to do this." Memo to Fischer: don't spend it all in the primary.
A few points jumped out. He spoke with great nostalgia about growing up in the '60's, which he recalls as a time of "hope" and "no cynicism," when "there was a feeling that we could do anything in the country."
Childhood recollections don't often reflect reality. What's more troubling about Fischer's recollections, however, is that they don't reflect much knowledge of history. He completely forgets the Vietnam war, and the Democrats' rush to cut and run, and the shameful way in which they treated our troops upon return. He forgets the epidemic of drug use that "flowered" under Democrat control characterized by slack law enforcement and judges who believed in "rehabilitation" rather than punishment. He forgets the damage that the Great Society wrecked upon our economy and the families of the inner cities.
Fischer purports to catalogue Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell's "values," in particular "greed." Apparently speaking from personal experience, Fischer states that "if you have enough money you can do whatever you please." (Like buying a U.S. Senate seat?)
He then goes on to state that McConnell is the "wealthiest Senator in the U.S. Senate." That statement is so far from the truth that it's laughable, so Fischer is quick to explain that McConnell's wealth is in terms of the money he has raised for his campaign. It's an awkward argument for Richie Rich -- especially coupled with Fischer's complaint that he is "tired of the obstacles for the average person to get involved."
Of course the biggest such obstacle is money. Again, that's no issue for Fischer because he can finance his campaign by writing a personal check. But it is a huge obstacle to anyone -- like McConnell -- who is not personally wealthy.
As a result of campaign finance "reform," someone like Fischer can spend as much of his own money as he wants to buy the primary. If the first amendment was unimpeded by campaign finance "reform," a candidate like Andrew Horne could simply call up George Soros and get a big ole contribution of thousands or millions. As a result of campaign finance "reform," we have less ideological diversity, not more.
This effect on the speech opportunities of potential candidates is one reason why McConnell has opposed "reform" measures like McCain-Feingold, or the Alien and Sedition Act of 2001.
Fischer benefits from a system that allows a rich guy to write a check to his personal campaign for one million dollars. In fairness, a competing candidate should be allowed to ask ten friends to donate $100,000. Instead, that candidate can only raise $25,000 from 10 friends. Nor can this be justified on the grounds that it forces candidates to speak to the middle-class, because self-funding millionaires can -- and do -- end run the system.
Indeed, Fischer concludes by boasting that he's "gonna have the financial resources to do this." Memo to Fischer: don't spend it all in the primary.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)