Cato: Funny, we didn't hear the primal scream about campaign finance from liberal Democrats during the 2008 campaigns, when money was pouring into their coffers from everywhere. Do we need any better evidence of the hypocrisy surrounding their screams this year? If so, turn to the lead editorial in this morning's Wall Street Journal. It'll tell you all you need to know about the campaign finance "reform" ruse that has been going on for years.
Showing posts with label Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Campaign finance reform: R.I.P.?
Politico: ""It's no secret that the reformers are on the run — they've gotten pounded in the courts and also have not been very successful legislatively," said Brad Smith, chairman of the Center for Competitive Politics, a nonprofit that opposes many campaign regulations and that has had a hand in several recent important court cases striking down such rules.
Only a decade ago, the campaign finance movement achieved one of its greatest victories: the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which reformers saw as a foundation they would build upon in the years ahead."
Only a decade ago, the campaign finance movement achieved one of its greatest victories: the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which reformers saw as a foundation they would build upon in the years ahead."
Labels:
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,
Brad Smith,
campaign finance,
Center for Competitive Politics,
Citizens United,
politics
The Primary Purpose of McCain-Feingold Revealed
Cato: In other words, if Feingold's campaign finance law had not proven to be contrary to the U.S. Constitution, he might well not be facing "an uphill battle" to serve a fourth term in Washington. The political speech that is causing Feingold problems would have been prohibited in that situation. But the First Amendment favors speech and not the re-election needs of senators.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Should Congress regulate political ad money?
Christian Science Monitor:
YES (Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist, Public Citizen) -- Just as important, transparency provides voters with the tools necessary to weigh the merits of political messages. Full disclosure of major donors funding a campaign ad is critical information for voters in assessing the interests behind, and accuracy of, the political message.
NO (David N. Bossie, president, Citizens United) -- In regulating political speech and money in political advertising, Congress has time and time again shown a willingness to sacrifice freedom of speech in favor of overbroad legislation and regulation. It is this tendency that led to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (“BCRA”) – a law that significantly burdened the exercise of First Amendment rights.
Since its enactment, the US Supreme Court has overturned many of BCRA’s restrictions on speech, but there are still far too many laws on the books regulating political speech.
Labels:
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act,
campaign finance,
Citizens United,
congress,
Freedom of speech,
Political campaign,
Supreme Court of the United States
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)