tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post111884773429441239..comments2023-09-11T08:58:24.710-06:00Comments on Reach Upward: Campaign Finance Reform Only Makes Matters WorseScott Hinrichshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1118927631486617832005-06-16T07:13:00.000-06:002005-06-16T07:13:00.000-06:00Thanks, Steve. I feel validated. But blogging at...Thanks, Steve. I feel validated. But blogging at 1:44 AM? Do you ever do the sleep thing?Scott Hinrichshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11831447472339880148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10424035.post-1118907884799360292005-06-16T01:44:00.000-06:002005-06-16T01:44:00.000-06:00I agree with you that government funding of candid...I agree with you that government funding of candidates is a bad idea. Where do we start and stop? There are MANY parties and candidates; they all should get a shot, but taxpayers don't want to fund the Party for Niceness to 3-Legged Dogs. <BR/><BR/>But I think campaign reform laws are primarily incumbency protection laws. Political speech is vital -- the ability to say that the emperor has no clothes or that he's a bum or that he reminds you of the mean man who lived on the corner and you just can't stand that or anything under the sun without any threat of repercussion. That is a pretty key nugget in ensuring a very free society. Remember, I am "one of those guys." And believe me, I understand the tremendous power of incumbency. Any time I want to be on the radio or in the newspaper in my district, I simply pick up the phone. Because I am actually helping make some of the news, some of the things I have to say are newsworthy. And, elected leaders should keep constituents informed by broadcasting government's activities. But should we assume that these appearances have no "political" purpose? Go right ahead, if you want. Someone wanting to run against me probably wouldn't have that luxury with the media. But to beat me, he'd have to get his message out. And he'd likely have to pay some shekels to do it. If you value his ability to say he could do a better job than me and throw his hat in the ring, you have to allow him to gather money to do it (hopefully, I'm just talking about a fictional person here). Your political free speech loses real meaning, if you are free to say I'm a bum but you can't fund a candidate to run against me. You'd be encouraging me to ignore you (if I knew you couldn't touch me politically), instead of forcing me to pay attention to you and govern better. I say let candidates get money just about anywhere but disclose the heck out of it.<BR/><BR/>Another point. Is campaign spending out of control? I'd be interested in knowing the total amounts of money spent in the last presidential election and yearly on the New York Yankees' payroll.steve u.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969noreply@blogger.com