Have a question or issue in campaign law? Contact us and we'll try to answer you. Enter your e-mail below:
Learn more about...
Interested in a specific subject? Click here to browse our blog by subject area.
Blog Roll
AFJ Nonprofit Advocacy Blog
Beltway Blogroll
Campaign Legal Center blog
Cato Unbound
Common Cause Blog
Division of Labour
First Amendment Center
Going to the Mat
Instapundit.com
The Lonely Centrist
Michael Barone
More Soft Money Hard Law (Bob Bauer)
Political Activity Law
Public Citizen WatchdogBlog
RedState
Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog
Sabato's Crystal Ball
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw
|
|
What will they say?
Published on June 2, 2008 03:30 PM
by Michael Schrimpf
File Under: Faulty Assumptions
Campaign finance "reform" is supposed to guard against corruption and the "appearance of corruption" - or so we are told
Proponents of a highly regulated campaign system like to seize on any scandal no matter how dubious or how unrelated to campaign finance laws as proof that more regulation is needed. Skeptics of campaign finance regulation counter that nearly all improprieties by elected officials are not the result of lax campaign finance laws and should not be used as an excuse to further blunt the First Amendment.
A developing situation in New York City puts proponents of taxpayer-subsidized campaigns found in a rather delicate situation.
Members of New York City Council, all of whom have benefited from taxpayer-subsidized campaigns, are being investigated for funneling millions of taxpayer dollars to "slush funds" and "phantom organizations."
Questionable behavior by elected officials has always existed - but it is most often NOT the result of the type of campaign finance system in place. However, one thing is certain. When politicians who are elected with the help of taxpayer subsidies misappropriate money the taxpayers lose twice.
