Public financing, if available to anyone, means that the public with have to pay taxes that support the campaigns of lunatics like Lyndon LaRouche. But if the money is restricted, then the government is now determining who can and cannot run for public office - which is a terrifying power to grant the state.
Supplemental public financing (where both public and private funds can be used) is problematic for similar reasons. If established parties can get additional campaign funds from taxation, you are in effect subsidizing the status quo.
In the end, I think trying to keep influence money out of politics is like trying to keep drunks out of liquor stores.
James Leroy Wilson's one-man magazine.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Game, Set, Match on Campaign Finance Reform
From commenter Kurt Horner at Freedom Democrats:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Fortunately you're incorrect on both counts. Candidates like Lyndon LaRouche couldn't receive public funds unless the required number of voters in the jurisdiction he wanted to represent decided they wanted to hear what he had to say...which also addresses your second concern: voters decide who gets campaign funding, not the "government." (For bipartisan info see www.just6dollars.org)
ReplyDeleteThat misses the point. What is the "required number of voters?" Who decides that? Who sets the bar? The Government.
ReplyDeleteUnder public financing, a candidate has to get votes to get money, but can't get votes without money. That's a rigged system.
The chief argument, of course, is that public financing is a vicious assault on freedom of conscience. What if Lyndon LaRouche or David Duke get enough votes? Should the taxpayer be forced to fund speech they find insulting?