Former FEC Chairman on McCain and Campaign Finance

Former head of the Federal Election Commission, now a law professor at Capital University, talks with reason.tv about how campaign finance laws punish political speech. And why John McCain won't shake Smith's hand.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• brad
• campaign
• fec
• feingold
• finance
• john
• law
• mccain
• smith

[stanthefatman]

I love reason TV

[Galt425]

If, instead of a donation, you spent that money on advertising that got 150 other people to donate to that charity, -then- you'd have an analogy. And that -would- be free speech. Broadcast advertising, printing and handing out leaflets (ala Ben Franklin...) are all forms of free speech. And should be protected, particularly when political.

[CVForty3]

This elitist, law school professor wants to appear as if he has been embraced by founding fathers. He's mastered appearing oh-so rational, but when you scrutinize his positions the flacid flaws become clear. He pshaws the notion of fat cats running politics and wants to portray himself as guardian of the little guy because, well, it's hard to fill out reports(!) We are all better off knowing when a fat cat is supporting a puppet. Pinnacle of Smith's life: McCain NOT shaking his hand. Sad.

[TomStrong08]

You contradicted yourself in your own paragraph.

[whoo689]

Lastly, i don't buy that argument that campaign reform is "restricting free speech." Since when was money "free speech"?? That's just absurd. If I give money to a charity, is THAT "free speech"?? Of course not. It's just a donation. It's really nothing more than funding for your candidate. I suppose if you stretch things out, it is "free speech", but all it says is "I support this candidate." Pretty generic, don't you think?

[whoo689]

Plus, individual independents like me who don't really care for undemocratic interest groups (where leadership at the top tells all the members what to do or how to think) and aren't members (nor members of a particular party) and don't own a union or business are shut out in this current system. I'm also not a fan of "interest group rating" of candidates. It's oftentimes very skewed to THEIR definition of "pro-business" or "pro-environment", when mine probably isn't as strict.

[whoo689]

aren't individuals the core of our political system?? So why should their voices matter less in terms of funding candidates? Hell, I don't even agree with corporate personhood. It's unconstitutional. It's silly, and they need to get out of politics.

Plus, campaign reform could possibly help make money much less of an issue in the campaign if candidates didn't have to break their backs raising it. They could focus on more substantive issues.

[whoo689]

Of course, I mostly support campaign finance reform in terms of federal funding of campaigns that voluntarily ask for the money, so they don't have to spend days upon days raising so much private money and spending less on "regular" campaign events and ads, esp. if they're unknown and new. That shouldn't keep them from being competitive.

I also don't like how, under our current system, individuals can only give 2300 while corporations and PACs can give 100s of thousands. It's insane!

[whoo689]

I'm pro-campaign finance reform, to an extent, but even I don't support McCain-Feingold. It's a stupid policy! That's not what real campaign fiannce reform is all about. And if you think that, you're sadly mistaken. I'm sure you can find tons of true supporters of campaign finance reform who hate the bill. Real campaign finance reform is designed to limit the influences of soft money and huge donors who stifle the voices of small donors by default just b/c they don't have much money.

[MetaMorphy]

I like McCain's willingness to attack somebody like that, but he is very wrong on this issue.