Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, giving a Dole Lecture for the University of Kansas’ Dole Institute of Politics, said Monday that “it is way too expensive” to run for office and that he would “support a constitutional amendment to limit the time and amount of money required to campaign.” But Daschle’s amendment might violate the First Amendment’s provision against laws “abridging the freedom of speech.” And incumbents, who are well-served by the status quo, can’t seriously be expected to pass anything to help those who would challenge them. (Not that the status quo work so well for Daschle in 2004, of course.)
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
15 Comments
A simple amendment:”The expenditure of money on candidates for election to public office shall not be considered an exercise of FREE speech as outlined in Amendment I of this Constitution.”
Might violate? Might? Not surprising members of the Wichita Eagle/McCain editorial board would feel this way. They only care about the First Amendment when it deals with their precious, money-losing, newspaper. As for the rest of us? Let us eat freedom of speech cake.
Eat yellow caked and blow away Joe, like a fart on the wind.
Campaigns should be publicly funded. As it stands, only the rich can afford to run for office. And they do tend to serve their own, regardless of party. Limiting the amount spent on campaigns is a start.
They will always find a loop hole. McCain/Feingold didn’t do anything. Now they want to do more?
Is he upset because he lost?
I find myself in agreement with JR on this one. Unfortunately, the people that MAKE the laws are the ones that would be most impacted by this.
Politicians have demonstrated their incredible ability to take care of themselves at the expense of us, so I know I won’t be holding my breath waiting for true election reform.
Here’s my proposal, for what it’s worth. It starts with recognizing, if the paper doesn’t, that dollars = speech, as the SC has recognized. I can spend my dollars as I choose. One thing gov’t should NEVER be permitted to do is tell me what or when I can say in terms of political speech (which is exactly what McCain-Feingold tries to do, and why it is a failure, and deserves to be so).
1) Contributions may be received only from real persons. That means no PACS, corporations, unions, etc. They are artificial entities, not real persons. Only real persons may vote, only real persons may contribute.
2) All contributions over $100 are recorded and released weekly, listing the contributor and the amount given, available to the media and on the internet. If a candidate is bought, we’re entitled to know who bought him, and for how much, and can consider our votes accordingly.
3) The candidate likewise weekly would post an accounting of expenditures, listing specifically how the dollars are spent.
4. Match small contributions (under $5000) with federal dollars, conditioned upon spending limits.
5. Any candidate can spend as much as he likes of his own money, if he is willing to give up the federal money.
Non-candidates or other organizations are free to spend and campaign as they like, independently, of course (that pesky 1st Amendment, again).
Just a thought. It’s not perfect, I’m sure, and is just an idea in progress. I’m open for suggestions. I am NOT, however, interested in creating exceptions to the 1st amendment. The answer to speech we don’t like is more speech.
The problem is not the candidates themselves but the activist organizations that are campaigning on behalf of the candidate.
Corporations and Unions cannot contribute to a candidate. Pacs can, but only a limited amount. But corporations and unions can contribute as much as they want to pacs. PACS can use that money and campaign on behalf of the candidate. The Candidate doesn’t see a dime but benefits from the pacs anyways.
Most candidates have warchest of millions of dollars, even local state legislators have big ones. They don’t spend it all. It just sits there and collects more and more money. They have enough money, more money then they can ever use.
I’m not for sure if campaign finance reform is the answer, because we’ve been doing that over and over again and it doesn’t solve anything, if nothing at all, it makes it worse. Jack Abromoff is an example of somebody who capitalize on the new campaign finance laws.
Maybe we need to think what it means to be a candidate. I don’t advocate this, but maybe term limits could be a good thing or worth debating. Or we can remove the primary system and have a free for all general election with a run-off.
I think we need to change something about that rather than trying to keep money out of politics.
Daschle, the man who made “wimp” synonymous with “Democratic.”
I don’t want to hear that man, even if he has a good idea.
Isn’t there a sensitivity training session you need to attend, Tom?
Or maybe you could start one–”how to forgive conservatives who beat my ass like a bass drum, shook me like a rag doll, and kicked my inert and lifeless body over and over.”
Too bad you seem to have no anger to let go of.
Even now, with the Operation Endless Debacle starting in on year four in Iraq, Mr. Milquetoast is speaking about the burning issue of GASP! campaign finance.
Go away, Tom, go far, far away.
Another area that needs reform is in communications. It is time to bring back the fairness doctrine. On election day, and in the days, weeks and years before, the right has a non stop ad running in the form of talk radio. If equal time cannot be made for the other or any other sides, then these programs should be treated as the political advertising they are.
Joe makes a lot of good points about both $$$ and the idea of an “open primary” system (one general election with run-off)
Hey, the conservatives are so proud of their “Just say No” program, why don’t we start a politicion’s program to “Limit my campain to $???.???.??”.
It’ makes about as much sense.
The SC is certainly a baffling group. Sometimes I think they need to take some continuing ed. courses in philopsophy and logic to supllement their knowledge of the law.
On the basis of the words alone, money does not equal speech. Oral communication is speech, written words are speech, political cartoons are speech, a gesture my be speech. Human activities which convey an idea are forms of speech.
Money, on the other hand, is not speech. It may be a requisite or predicate for some forms of speech, but it is clearly not speech.
The SC, in Buckley v. Valeo (I think) made some seriously disturbing statements… like “The concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” So would the Court consider an ordinance prohibiting the use of bullhorns at town meetings an unconstitutional attempt to “enhance the relative voice” of those without them?
The SC seems unable to distinguish that there is a profound difference between who we are (human beings with an inalienable right to self-expression) and what we may possess (money or other forms of property). Democracy is simply not sustainable in any society that confuses the second with the first.
What to do about money, campaigns, term limits? I have no idea, but I think GMC offered some interesting proposals.
I remember one post of mine when the Abramoff affair surfaced. I stated there would be nothing of substance done to correct and eliminate the chance of it happeniong again. I have found that to be true so far.
GMC70 does have somne excellent ideas, as he usually does. I would go further: Allow corporations and unions to contribute, but limit their contributions to those of a single individual, i.e., ATT can give a candidate no more than Joe Blow can. (sorry joe, your monikor is somewaht universal:-)
Post ALL money recieved by a candidate, regardless of the amount, on a government website, listing who and how much was donated.
Limit campaign spending to a specific amount for each office sought.
Should a candidate decide to use his or her own money, it would directly reduce the amount allowed to be taken in from private donors dollar by dollar.
I think a constitutional amendment covering term limits would be more important than one on contributions.
Ok so spend as much as you like as long as it is reported?
Unh-uh not good enough.Americans are not well informed. They are generally too lazy or busy or disinterested to check out such things.
But many still vote for the guy whose name and commercials and signs are seen most. (I did that when I was a Republican) Again that matter of being under informed.
Start with the Fairness doctrine as to radio and TV.
Put a cap on spending for the campaigns themselves.
Put a cap on the amount each interest group may spend.
Put a cap on indiviual contributions.
JR,”Limit campaign spending to a specific amount for each office sought.”
A start.
” Put a cap on the amount each interest group may spend.
Put a cap on indiviual contributions. ”
But make the interest groups amount allowed the same as an individuals.
Why in the hell does this blog have only 15 posts?
It appears JR is correct: “Americans are not well informed. They are generally too lazy or busy or disinterested to check out such things.
But many still vote for the guy whose name and commercials and signs are seen most. (I did that when I was a Republican) Again that matter of being under informed.”
And nothing will change until people wake up and do something about it, like, well, VOTE THE MORONS OUT OF OFFICE AND ELECT PEOPLE WILLING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM.
Sheesh, what does it take, baseball bats to get peoples attention? Or maybe a new burger at McDonalds?