"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:hngao69f0v8plc4ac9j4gd0gublhsht3mg@4ax.com...
> "Fred Brown" <fredbbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>The Fight for Free Speech Continues
>>
>>By Robert Frommer
>>
>>Yesterday, the Institute for Justice filed a reply brief in the U.S.
>>Supreme
>>Court in support of its challenge to Arizona's Clean Elections Act. The
>>Goldwater Institute, which is litigating a related challenge before the
>>Court, filed its reply brief on Tuesday.
>>
>>For those of you who don't remember, Arizona's system gives publicly
>>financed candidates government money whenever traditional candidates or
>>independent groups speak "too much." Here's a short video that explains
>>how
>>the Act works:
>>
>>Click link to view YouTube video
>>
> Seems to me, the problem isn't with the basic idea, but with
> "triggered matching funds provisions" ... What the Supreme Court
> stepped in and (at least temporarily) halted.
Unless the issue is decided before, it kicks in again in September.
> Seems to me that somebody accepting Public Funds for a campaign
> *SHOULD* start out behind, and basically *remain* behind in funds
> received; though not necessarily FAR behind.
Campaign finance laws are crafted by incumbents to protect incumbents
against challangers gaining a foothold in the political arena. Particularly
when the incumbent has fallen out of favor with the electorate and the
challanger is collecting a bigger war chest.
Tax payers who check the campaign finance donation box on their tax
returns are fooled into thinking their donation will be distributed equally
between the candidates.
> It (after all) is THEIR choice to receive public funding.
> However, a candidate shouldn't be able to just BUY an election either
> by outspending a lesser candidate ten-to-one or greater; so that
> his/her opponent's message is completely swamped; or worse-yet bought
> out by paying such higher prices for media coverage that the media in
> question cannot afford to put up an opposing message.
Buying elections is pretty much what happens these days, especially the
Presidency. The only candidates are always millionaires and half of
both houses of Congress are millionaires.
> (Would YOU, running a private but barely-making-it TV station give
> prime-time spots to a private candidate if his/her opponent offered
> millions for every available slot? Hasn't happened YET; but it
> could.)
>
>>The Dirty Game Of Arizona's "Clean Elections"
>>
>>http://www.makenolaw.org/blog/5-politicalspeech/176-the-fight-for-free-speech-continues?
>>
>>The reply briefs that the Institute for Justice and the Goldwater
>>Institute
>>filed demonstrate not only how this regime violates the First Amendment,
>>but
>>how it flouts a directly controlling U.S. Supreme Court case that was
>>decided just three years ago.
>>
>>The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case on March 28th.
>>
>>Come back to MakeNoLaw.org for more updates as the case progresses.
>
> Still, one of the basic flaws is the premise that ANY election is
> fair.
> Or ... even could-be. ;-{
>
> And, every politician worth voting for KNOWS that; and plays the game
> for all he/she is worth. These days it seems that the only BAD
> election is the one your particular candidate loses.
>
> If they change the rules like this so-called "Clean Elections" law
> does, then you, as a candidate, should learn to run under the new
> rules.
>
> Yeah, this law "leveling the playing field" does seem to penalize
> those with big money support, because they aren't allowed to outspend
> their less well-supported opponents.
>
> This wouldn't really BE a problem if both sides got their support from
> *private* contributors instead of corporate ones or public funds.
>
> As it is, the problem just got shifted ... From corporations able to
> BUY elections, to candidates getting elected with little or no actual
> support at all.
>
> And, of course, those crying loudest are the corporations not being
> allowed to buy the candidate of their choice.
>
> Methinks that restrictions of corporate support made more sense.
> But that got tossed already.
>
> Probably this law will too; as it seems to also be against corporate
> interests. Big money still speaks loudest.
>
> Neither side is REALLY interested in true Free Speech.
> That interest got lost long ago.
>
> Labeling it such, is just the usual Dirty Politics; rather like
> labeling attacks against what you or I can read or see as "Protecting
> the Children"; or the so-called PATRIOT act. Nothing patriotic THERE.
>
> Hard to vote against with names like that though.
>
> Same I guess (good OR bad) with a name like "Clean Elections Act".
> All you can bet on, with a name like that, is one side or the other is
> going to get screwed.
>
> Whether or not it's the RIGHT side, depends I guess on your political
> leanings.
> --
> _____
> / ' / ™
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
|