The Caffeinated Penguin

Posted By matt on September 9, 2006

For those of you who are not aware, we are entering the McCain-Feingold dark period. This is a period of 60 days before an election where varieties of “Coordinated Communications” are banned, because they may constitute “contributions” to a campaign. The fear here is that these “Coordinated Communications” may apply to random folks as well. If I say that I approve of a candidate, then that is a contribution to his or her campaign. If I criticize a candidate, then this may constitute a contribution to some other politicians campaign.

This is all a very grey legal area – no one knows how this applies to private individuals on the internet. So, a few folks are standing up and saying “this does not apply to private citizens. Of all things that should be covered by the first amendment, political speech should be at the forefront, and we will speak.” They are the McCain-Feingold insurrection (see the What is.. for more information).

So, here is where I throw my hat into the ring. Not only should political speech be protected at all costs, but I will go so far as to say that this whole series of “campaign finance reform” bills is predicated upon the idea that the American people are stupid and therefore are offensive and insulting.

The basic idea behind all campaign finance reform is that we need to limit who can give money and support to whom and how much can be given. Why? Well, the oft-stated reason is roughly the following:

“Well financed politicians would win elections and poorly financed ones lose elections. If people were allowed to give as much as they wanted, then we would have candidates getting elected who are controlled by rich men”.

Now, let's examine the various problems with this sentiment:

1. The people still need to elect them.
2. Money is a necessary condition to getting elected: you have to get your message out. However, it is not a sufficient condition. Witness Steve Forbes and H. Ross Perot – despite all their money, they did not get elected.

Now, (2), above, tells you why the sentiment is silly, not why it's offensive.

(1) above tells you why it's offensive.

It is predicated upon the idea that “well financed politicians will spend money on advertising, sway the people to their side, and get elected”. This implies that the American people are too stupid to see through the advertising and will be easily duped.

I, for one, think that the American people are very smart, and if we start to see candidates who are merely the puppets of rich men, then the American people will elect replacements. If they do not, then it is their own fault. Ultimately, they are in control of their own destiny.

Therefore, campaign finance reform should work like this:

• Anyone should be able to give any amount to any candidate which they see fit.
• There should be no restrictions on political speech by any groups.

This will lead to candidates from all walks of life – from folks bankrolled by a huge group of supporters to those bankrolled by a few rich ones. Just because someone is rich, doesn't mean he can't think someone would be a good statesman.

While looking at the McCain-Feingold insurrection site, I noticed this banner:
http://www.mattcaron.net/lj_images/keyboard23fp.jpg” alt=”Keyboard and AK”>
This inspired me to take a similar photo:
http://www.mattcaron.net/lj_images/first_and_second_small.jpg” alt=”Keyboard and AK”>

Category: LJ Import
Tags: