The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. the Federal Election Commission, which may help restore some sanity to our political campaigns.
Why do you suggest that permitting unlimited individual and corporate contributions is “extreme”? Spending is speech, and we have a First Amendment right to it that most decidely includes political speech.
Why do you call the spending on campaigns “obscene”? Besides being the First Amendment right of citizens in a free country, it’s quite rational given the stakes.
A tax credit for political donations is a TERRIBLE idea. Besides the fact that all taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize the political donations of a subset, such an idea is rife for corruption (“hey, I’ll run for office, you contribute $1,000 to me, I’ll kick back $700 of it to you, and we each come out with more money than we started with…).
Now make no mistake, I agree with you re: transparency/disclosure laws. I definitely agree that the *real* problem is that government is *so* big and *so* intrusive and has *so* much money and power. And near as I can tell I agree with your general point about the badness of these “coordination” laws.
But you confuse and/or dilute your message when you call what Virginia allows “extreme” or the amount spent on political campaigns “obscene” (last I checked it was the same order of magnitude but actually still less than American spending on candy) or suggest subsidies for political contributions.
Billions spent - wasted, more often than not - on political campaigns is a sign of a government that is too big and whose policies are too often for sale.
You also misunderstand my point about the "extremes" in states between Virginia's and New Jersey's laws - I was talking about bell curves. Open spending and limits involving corporations and individuals is an idea not extreme unto itself, it's just rarely followed. I'm sorry you missed the point. I thought it was obvious. Open and unlimited contributions is a perfectly justifiable idea. It's not just one very many states use.
Your analysis of my tax credit idea is weird. I can't say it any nicer. Your example never happens, and wouldn't.
This excellent piece is a public service.
Why do you suggest that permitting unlimited individual and corporate contributions is “extreme”? Spending is speech, and we have a First Amendment right to it that most decidely includes political speech.
Why do you call the spending on campaigns “obscene”? Besides being the First Amendment right of citizens in a free country, it’s quite rational given the stakes.
A tax credit for political donations is a TERRIBLE idea. Besides the fact that all taxpayers shouldn’t subsidize the political donations of a subset, such an idea is rife for corruption (“hey, I’ll run for office, you contribute $1,000 to me, I’ll kick back $700 of it to you, and we each come out with more money than we started with…).
Now make no mistake, I agree with you re: transparency/disclosure laws. I definitely agree that the *real* problem is that government is *so* big and *so* intrusive and has *so* much money and power. And near as I can tell I agree with your general point about the badness of these “coordination” laws.
But you confuse and/or dilute your message when you call what Virginia allows “extreme” or the amount spent on political campaigns “obscene” (last I checked it was the same order of magnitude but actually still less than American spending on candy) or suggest subsidies for political contributions.
Billions spent - wasted, more often than not - on political campaigns is a sign of a government that is too big and whose policies are too often for sale.
You also misunderstand my point about the "extremes" in states between Virginia's and New Jersey's laws - I was talking about bell curves. Open spending and limits involving corporations and individuals is an idea not extreme unto itself, it's just rarely followed. I'm sorry you missed the point. I thought it was obvious. Open and unlimited contributions is a perfectly justifiable idea. It's not just one very many states use.
Your analysis of my tax credit idea is weird. I can't say it any nicer. Your example never happens, and wouldn't.