RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Some people who back campaign finance reform are well-meaning, but I don't agree with it. I believe that it's just another way for big government to intrude on certain liberties that are key, specifically freedom of speech. The McCain-Feingold law, which is currently the centerpiece of campaign finance law, regulates the timing, quantity and even the content of political speech through a provision that requires candidates to appear in their ads claiming that "I approve of this ad". This "stand by your ad" requirement is premised on two things that have nothing to do with McCain-Feingold's original purpose to regulate corporate campaign contributions: one is that forcing a candidate to identify with their ads will encourage them to run cleaner ads and therefore cleaner campaigns; and secondly, they're assuming that negative ads are somehow bad.

The first assumption is weak, just because a political ad might be negative doesn't mean that it doesn't contain valuable information, plus negative ads do work, so they'll be used no matter what. But it's the second assumption that's really morally and politically disturbing. Does the government really have the right to determine what's the proper tone of political speech in campaigns that will ultimately determine who controls the government? The stakes are too high at that level for such intrusiveness.

This is necessary if anything else is going to get done. And it's not just a Liberal goal; it should be a goal that every non-crony capitalist, non-lobbyist should agree on.

Well, Szin, even if I agreed with you, part of the problem is that big business does NOT want government cut back, not really. I mean, sure, they'd like to have it cut back where it doesn't affect them. But each of them has some stake somewhere and benefits from government in a variety of ways. Certainly they will always be spending money for influence on the infrastructure that benefits them. And are you willing to cut back on the military? Because the no-bid contracts represent the biggest pork barrel in federal government. I do think that some form of campaign finance reform is in order. I like the idea of opting in to public funding, but that public funding should not be fixed absolutely, but set to match the highest funding of a candidate who doesn't opt in - with a minimum of course. And airtime should be free and limited equally. Additionally, I would prefer a law that says that if you want to have your name on a ballot you have to participate in at least 3 debates with a format determined by a bipartisan commission, at which anybody who qualifies for ballot status in at least 40 states will participate. You can opt out if you want to run as a write-in.

There's a much easier solution. Downsize the scope and role of government and the big money will mostly disappear. People, corporations and lobbyists try to buy favors from politicians because the reach and importance of the government is greater today than at any other time in U.S. history.

No restrictions should exist on campaign financing. Anyone or anything should have the right to spend what they want on a campaign.

Like those two parties will behave?

Without this we have our Government,Constitution,and all it represents up for sale to the highest bidder.Since Money hardly has a tendancy to flow to those with the highest morals and most integrity this is indeed a grim and dire state of affairs.