PolicyBlog: Limiting political speech won’t create good government Monday, June 16, 2008My reply there
Limiting political speech won’t create good government
Hold the phone:
I worked to de-rail the campaign finance reform bill in Pgh about three years ago. Then, after begging, got onto the group to help draft this version. Then it was changed a bit with amendments.
I don't speak for Tim -- but for myself.
Of course none have pledged to make politics free from influence of special interests. That is an absurd wish. But, campaign finance reform can put an upper price tag on that influence.
Do you think that corporations feel left out and rights have been denied because there can be no corporate donations to candidates?
Just as goofy.
Of course it would be great to have the conventions paid for by the parties and not the taxpayers. But that is a different matter.
Campaign finance reform does not limit political speech. Your speech is always a right you have to yourself. A donation is not a speech. Rights are not able to be purchased. Speech is still free.
I do think that campaign finance reform will better serve the public.
I feel that elections will be more competitive with finance limits. Different. More people will run too. That is more important. It is hard to be more less competitive than the case now when too many run without any opposition.
Every corrupt politician and big city political machine does not favor campaign finance reform -- because Luke Ravenstahl just vetoed the bill.
The Pgh campaign finance reform was not with any part of government giving taxpayer handouts to favored businesses.
We agree that a way to "get money out of politics" is to limit the size and role of government. So, it makes sense then to limit the size and role of donations to candidates.