February 19, 2007
THE PRESIDENTIAL public financing system is probably dead for the 2008 campaign. Certainly, the notion that candidates would limit their spending during the primary season in return for receiving federal matching funds has become quaint; the limits are so outdated and the amount of funds that can be raised so great that no serious candidate will take that bargain. And, for the first time, it looks as if the second part of the post-Watergate financing reform -- providing each major-party nominee with full financing for the general election campaign -- is about to become extinct as well.Top-tier candidates of both parties, including Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and former senator John Edwards, have already started raising money for a general election race. (They'll have to give it back if they don't win the nomination.) So has Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), but with a twist: Mr. Obama has asked the Federal Election Commission to rule on whether he could legally collect money for the general election campaign but ultimately decide to take public funding were he to win the nomination and his GOP opponent followed suit.
The reality is that running a full modern campaign cannot be done on the budget set by law under public financing. Furthermore, the editorial begs the question of the desirability of public financing of campaigns. Why should we accept some artificial limit on political speech in the form spending limits? Why should we accept the inherent rationing of speech that results? Isn't it better for America to return to the system that served us well for most of the first two centuries of American history -- unlimited spending by candidates who raise money from willing contributors?
I think the answers to those questions should be self-evident to any believer in the First Amendment.
Posted by: Greg at
11:29 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.
19 queries taking 0.0073 seconds, 28 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.