Campaign Finance Laws Support Incumbents

Its nice to have that info, but at the least the thing passed! In these years of lesser of two evils I'd rather have a slight advantage for an incumbent than huge CORPORATE advantages.

Obviously this bill didn't go far enough, but its a start.

The First Ammendment says that "Congress shall make no law" abridging freedom of speech. Now we have Congress dictating how money can be spent 30 or 60 days before a primary or election. And we have citizens who want don't think its gone far enough?!

Today, corporations and unions will have their hands tied behind their back; Tomorrow, the comman man.

Be careful what you wish for.

If you read the Cato report, you'd see that states that try to limit soft money have a larger percentage of total hard money contributions coming from special interest groups.

Also, see what the ACLU has to say about the 60-day "no campaigning" regulations here.

Trust me, this bill doesn't do squat, except make it a bit more difficult for Republicans during the next election. They money will flow through other channels.

u

On Wednesday night, over two hundred members of Congress violated their oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by voting for a law that abridges the First Amendment. What did House Minority Leader Richard "Dick" Gephardt think of this dark day? He described it as the most important in his 25 years of service in the House. Well, if this is the most important day he's ever had, it tells us a lot.

Gephardt's most important day in the House should have been when the Congress came together at a joint session last September to hear the president of the United States give one of the most important speeches in recent American history. As you know, Bush assured a shaken nation that he would avenge the worst mass murder of citizens in our history in that speech. He declared war on terrorism, called the nation to arms, and united us like rarely before.

For most Americans, that was the most important day in the House in 25 years, not this silly, stupid, deceptively named campaign finance reform bill. But I can understand what Gephardt is saying. To him, job one is securing, maintaining and exercising power.

To him, Tom Daschle, other liberals in the Democratic Party and some in the Republican Party, the Constitution is an obstacle to their designs on this country and on their role in it.

To them, the Constitution of the United States is an impediment to bigger government, and parts of it have to be swept aside so that government can grow, so that more power can be amassed in Washington, D.C. What's shocking is that these people know that they're shredding the First Amendment. They know they are amending the Constitution - something you can't do by a simple majority vote.

Gephardt knows what he is doing. On February 27th, 1997, Gephardt said that the Supreme Court had ruled that, when it comes to elections, money equals speech. As a result of their decisions, only by allowing unlimited spending in campaigns can we protect the cherished right of free speech. He admitted that this put the following "two important values in direct conflict."

"Free speech, promoted through billions of dollars in 30-second negative ads," Gephardt said, "and our desires for healthy campaigns and a healthy democracy." But, Gephardt said, as the Supreme Court "has framed it, you can't have both." He then said, "That's why Barney Frank and I have proposed to change the excessive spending campaign system that the Buckley decision has put in place by proposing that an amendment to the Constitution to give Congress significant and explicit authority to regulate campaigns and campaign spending."

He said it five years ago, and proposed it by going through the proper mechanism for amending the Constitution. But now it's come to pass by a simple majority. Gephardt wants Congress in charge of elections, with the power to regulate campaigns and campaign spending. Stop and think about that. Big Brother has us in the cross-hairs.