Federal Campaign Finance Reform
No, no, no, please no!
Former NJ Senator Bill Bradley is back in the news again today. He has paired with the normally lucid former Wyoming Senator Alan Simpson, former Senator Bob Kerrey, and former Senator Warren Rudman to call for the federal government to pay for all federal elections.
Bradley said he was “appalled” at how much money New Jersey Governor Corzine spent in his 2000 bid to be senator from New Jersey.
This old argument is predicated upon the issue of senators having to raise so much money while in office to be re-elected, they supposedly are distracted from the work at hand. By having equal footing senators would be free to do the people’s work without having to raise funds.
The group of four is pitching this as merely $6 per taxpayer.
Oh, it is spun to be so reasonable-sounding.
This stifles free speech. Why shouldn’t Corzine be able to spend his own money to pitch his own ideas? While I would have a difficult time competing against him, if my ideas are good and I am a good leader, I should be able to raise enough cash to challenge him.
The argument that senators are distracted so cannot attend to the people’s business is ludicrous. In 1994 Republicans took control of Congress. Many of the freshmen ran on campaigns of serving one or two terms and getting out. Do you remember that, Mr. LoBiondo? You do not need to be distracted if you are not planning on running again.
Really, it is pathetic. The former senators are claiming they can’t do their jobs and need taxpayers to remedy the situation. Hogwash!
Senators could easily do their jobs by not kowtowing to special interest groups. Want to even the playing field? Kick the lobbyists out of the Capitol and pass a law that no lobbyist’s money can pay for any political campaigning. Furthermore, make it so the political parties cannot fund individual campaigns. Eliminating soft money will change the way campaigns are run.
But then again, the senators are too distracted from passing campaign finance reform.
Also blogged on this date . . .
- Traffic - 2007
- 196277 - 2005
- The Mill Walk - 2004
- Variety of Stuff - 2003
By John on May 13, 2006
I don’t quite understand the $6 plan. Isn’t it predicated on the two-party system? What if a Green Party candidate or Socialist Workers Party candidate, or hell, a Bull Moose Party candidate wanted to run? Wouldn’t they all be entitled to these federal funds? That would certainly put the cost at more than six bucks a person. And if they weren’t, wouldn’t the entire basis of our system of government be changed? Sure, very rarely does a candidate win without a “D” or “R” next to his/her name, but we shouldn’t be stacking the deck against third party candidates…