Will the Republican Party take a position on campaign finance at the GOP convention?

by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Political Committees & 527s, Political Parties

On Monday, the Washington Post highlighted the alleged looming battle between conservative party activists and John McCain over the Republican Party's convetion platform.

"Conservative activists are preparing to do battle with allies of Sen. John McCain in advance of September's Republican National Convention, hoping to prevent his views on global warming, immigration, stem cell research and campaign finance from becoming enshrined in the party's official declaration of principles," the Post reported.

The rest of the article examines the potential of party infighting over contentious issues like immigration, global warming, and stem cell research, while noting common agreement over the "war against terror" and the war in Iraq.

Left unexamined is the tension between McCain and conservative activists over one of the Senator's signature issues - campaign finance regulation. But, if the RNC's 2007 winter meeting is any indication, the battle over the Party's position on campaign finance regulation could be explosive.

More after the jump.

Published on July 8, 2008

That pesky First Amendment

by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Faulty Assumptions, Taxpayer Financing

In attempting to untie " a Knot in Campaign Finance", Robert Frank frays the rope with whispered intimations about the evils of free political speech.

I will not pretend to offer a better critique of Frank's commentary than is offered in Bauer's well-written post, but Frank's piece - given its quiet hostility towards the First Amendment - deserves some mention from CCP. 

Frank writes that "campaign spending is driven by the same logic that governs a military arms race," but this can be forgiven because the "waste from campaign spending is relatively trivial - at most, a small fraction of 1 percent of national income." Frank goes on to say that this level of spending is not the problem, but given such language, one wonders whether Frank would approve if America spent more of its money on electing its officeholders.

But the most startling of Frank's comments are when he declares that "the harsh reality is that free speech and good government are conflicting goals."

More after the jump.

Published on July 7, 2008

Give speech a chance

by Michael Schrimpf

The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle - home district paper of congressional candidate Jack Davis - ran a pair of op-eds (including one by Davis) examining the wider impact of the Supreme Court's decision in overturning the Millionaire's Amendment.  The opinions were predictable.

Davis contends that the current system allows lobbyists to have too large a voice in Washington. Naturally, voters should cast their ballots for him because his wealth allows him to be independent "from status quo politics and fundraising."

A representative of the League of Women Voters predictably counters that the decision makes it easier "to buy a seat in Congress."  But as Justice Samuel Alito suggested in the Court's majority opinion overturning the Millionaire's Amendment, if one believes that contribution limits "make it harder for candidates who are not wealthy to raise funds and therefore provide a substantial advantage for wealthy candidates...then the obvious remedy is to raise or eliminate those limits."

Notably absent from the paper's opinion pages was any suggestion that the best thing for our democracy is a return to First Amendment principles.

More after the jump.

Published on July 3, 2008 10:40 AM

Welfare Fraud

by Michael Schrimpf

In a delicious piece of irony, the Hartford Courant reports today that Connecticut state senator Joe Crisco, who voted for the state's new government-financing program, was denied the $85,000 government handout for failing to properly certify his application.

Instead of having his campaign treasurer sign an affidavit pledging to abide by the rules of the political welfare scheme, Crisco allowed his treasurer's secretary to sign the name of the treasurer.

Published on July 3, 2008

District Court Denial of Preliminary Injunction Request Leaves SpeechNow.org Silenced

A federal judge today denied a preliminary injunction request by SpeechNow.org, effectively silencing the citizen group in the midst of the 2008 election season.

SpeechNow.org is an independent group of citizens formed to protect the First Amendment at the ballot box.  The group is challenging federal campaign finance laws that say that any time two or more people pool their resources to support or oppose a federal candidate, they become a "political committee" subject to government limits-$5,000 per supporter per year-and bureaucratic red tape.

SpeechNow.org asked for a preliminary injunction so that it could begin its political advocacy immediately and without fear of legal penalties from the Federal Election Commission as the case proceeds.  Accepting or spending just $1,000 on speech opposing candidates would trigger those penalties-so the group has remained silent.

More after the jump.

Published on July 1, 2008 09:15 PM

Web politics

by Michael Schrimpf

File Under: Internet Regulation

The impact that the internet has had on Barack Obama's ability/decision to opt out of the presidential public financing system has been examined to the point of near exhaustion. Over the weekend, the New York Times offered an insightful look into another way that the internet has transformed politics.

This phenomen has turned "political activists" into "communications political strategists" and allowed citizens to reach an audience the size of which watches Meet the Press for as little as $50. The cause, of course, is the ability of just about anyone to use inexpensive editing software to produce their own political videos that could be viewed by millions on YouTube and other video sharing sites.

"For years I sat in conversations with people who said the only way we can be effective is we have to raise $1 billion and buy CBS. Well, Google raised a couple of billion and bought YouTube, and it’s here for us, and it’s a huge, huge difference,” observed one online activist.

The internet's ability to amplify the voice of ordinary citizens should merit protection across the political spectrum.

Published on July 1, 2008 01:30 PM