The Case For No Out-of-Jurisdiction Campaign Contributions: Prove Me Wrong
On This One, I Disagree with The Club For Growth (and probably almost everyone else). So prove me wrong.
__________________________________
Last week, Nevada congressional candidate Dean Heller (last paragraph at link; HT Club for Growth) said he would, if elected, “back a federal law to prevent federal candidates from acquiring most of their support from people and organizations outside of their districts.”
OK, the guy’s a first-class hypocrite, exposed by The Club, which went over the line hyperbolically and mischaracterized what Heller wants as a total ban (I see no evidence of that, even at the link they cite), because his campaign got most of his money from OUT of state.
But I am willing to go as far as CFG accused this guy of going, and I’ll walk it backwards to make my point:
- Current laws (and common sense) forbid presidential candidates from receiving contributions from non-citizens or foreign entities (I know, those laws were violated in the 1990s; we don’t need to go there).
- Why wouldn’t it be logical that US Senate candidates should only get campaign money from people who live in their state?
- Then why should a congressional race be funded with any money coming from individuals who don’t live in the congressional district involved?
The best question is: Who in their right mind would ever expect political campaigns to be funded by anyone OTHER THAN those who live in the political jurisdiction where the contest is taking place? Conversely, why does anyone think they have the right, beyond expressing their opinion and spending the money necessary to make that expression possible, to contribute to a political campaign in a place where they don’t live?
In unison, The Club For Growth and every PAC in the land stand up and scream “free speech, free association.”
I say “Wrong, totally wrong.”
No one’s free speech is being trampled on. Anyone is free write a letter to the editor, stand on a soap box, or in modern times give their opinions in forums, on blogs, and on radio programs in support of or in opposition to a given candidate. Since I agree that money spent on expressing an opinion is protected speech, outsiders and outside organizations can also buy all the issue-oriented news, broadcast, and Internet ads they wish, as long as they disclose who they are AND where they are from.
But nonresident individuals and outside organizations should not be able to contribute directly to individual candidates’ campaigns. Only people who live in the political jurisdiction involved should be able to make direct contributions. The people who live in a state or district have the right to expect that that THEY will be represented in Congress and the Senate, not busybodies or monied types who don’t hail from that state or district, and should be able to clearly identify when outsiders are exercising their constitutional free-speech rights to influence their election. I really don’t understand why, from here in Ohio’s Second Congressional District, I have the legal right to contribute to Arnold Schwarzenegger re-election campaign in California, Joe Lieberman’s or Ted Lamont’s Connecticut senatorial campaign, or even Steve Chabot’s or John Cranley’s congressional campaign in the district next door to the one I live in. A contribution to a candidate is not speech; it’s a campaign contribution. You want speech? Open your mouth; write a letter; buy an ad.
So here’s my challenge to anyone who thinks they have a constitutionally-granted right to give money to any candidate, anywhere, any time — Show me anything the Founding Fathers said (anywhere, any time), or anything in the ORIGINAL text of the Constitution or other founding documents, specifically indicating that anyone at the time of our country’s founding would have found it acceptable for congressional candidates to rely on money coming from out-of-district sources (the Senate isn’t relevant to original intent, because until the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, senators were selected by state legislatures; and yes, I believe moving away from that was a mistake).
Court decisions DON’T COUNT. Founding document text and Founders’ statements are the ONLY things that qualify.
I’m perfectly willing to throw up the white flag if I’m wrong. Good luck.
________________________________
UPDATE: Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion wrote in an e-mail –
The problem that I see with your proposal is that Congressmen and Senators have impact well beyond just the areas they represent. Let’s see if somebody comes back with “No taxation without representation,” because there is, I think, an argument to be made there. There are congressional committees that make regulations that effect every state in the Union yet not every state in the Union is represented on the committees. For that reason alone, I think folks should have some say…
My response is that the free-speech right to “have your say” accomplishes making an impact without exerting financial influence over a campaign and potentially leading a candidate to represent his/her outside givers and not his/her constituents.
UPDATE 2: (links to come — added [finally] in the paragraphs on McEwen and Duckworth on August 27) David Keating at Club for Growth has a response up (thanks for the promptness) that hangs its hat on The First Amendment’s right of assembly:
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
It seems to me clear that the people have the right to assemble support for a candidate they like, whether they live in the district or not. Votes taken in Congress affect everyone, not just those in the district.
Someone who believes in limited government should not be advocating laws to limit the people’s right and ability to change the government, which is exactly what this would do.
Ah, but David, the word “support” does not come after “assemble” in the Constitution. The right of assembly is a right to get together and exercise the First Amendment’s free-speech rights. Try again.
I find it hard to take that The Founders would have “supported” the idea of citizens from Massachusetts providing the lion’s share of campaign funding for a congressman running for a seat in Georgia in, say, 1802. I will suggest, absent specific evidence not yet provided, that they would have been appalled at the prospect. So as far as BizzyBlog is concerned, absent specific Founders’ commentary that would show me to be wrong, that part of The First Amendment doesn’t even get you in the neighborhood.
As to peoples’ “ability to change the government,” I’m concerned that, for example, in Ohio’s First District, residents’ “ability to change the government” (or keep it as it is, if they’re reasonably content) is being shortchanged when someone like George Soros and umpteen of his relatives bankroll John Cranley’s campaign against Steve Chabot. If elected, will Cranley pay more attention to Soros and MoveOn.org, or to the people of his district?
I was very concerned in May and June of 2005 that my “ability to change the government” (or in this case choose it, since it was an open seat) in Ohio’s Second District, where I live, was nearly taken away from me by out-of-state evangelicals and out-of-state Amway Quixtar “Independent Business Owners” who bankrolled carpetbagging Bob McEwen. What are the chances that “Homeless Bob,” if elected, would have represented the people of my this district, and not James Dobson, Dick Devos, or Bob’s K Street compadres from the previous decade or so?
Which leads to another point: Under the current ridiculous setup, a congressional candidate doesn’t have to live in his/her district (see Tammy Duckworth [IL-06] and “Green Card” Charlie Wilson [OH-06]), and there’s nothing stopping that same nonresident candidate from getting all of his or her campaign money from out of the district. If elected, exactly what degree of loyalty to the interests of his or her supposed constituents will such a candidate have? Or is that not important?
David is also concerned about cementing incumbents’ advantages. Given that I would not want there to be any restriction on anyone’s speech or ability to spend money to exercise that speech, I simply don’t agree. Remember that the incumbent can only get direct campaign money from within his or her district too. And there’s nothing stopping the Club, or George Soros, or anyone else from flooding the airwaves with their issue ads supporting challengers they favor. Outsiders just don’t get to directly buy politicians. “Surprise” — I don’t see that as a bad thing. Libs might argue that “indirect influence” through ads vs. direct contributions is a distinction without a difference, but I disagree. Someone who supported me with their speech would have my gratitude; someone who directly supported my campaign would have a lot more than that, which is why it should be limited to a jurisdiction’s residents.
The need for specific Founders’ support for outside contributions to congressional campaigns remains.
UPDATE 3: To be clear, the restriction I’m suggesting should be THE ONLY ONE I believe should exist. I reject McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on speech, ads, etc. I reject contribution limits; people inside the area where the political office is being contested should be able to give as much as they wish to the candidate of their choice, as long as all contributions are disclosed as close to instantaneously as possible.
UPDATE 4: Maybe the best argument that The Founders never dreamed that there would or should be cross-jurisdiction political contributions is the fact that the state legislatures originally picked senators. But then I’m supposed to believe that they would have been OK with Carolina money funding Connecticut races? I don’t think so. UPDATE 4A: The 10th Amendment’s impact here is interesting too, as it says that powers not enumerated belong to the states first and then the people. To me this gives states the ablity/duty to run their affairs (including elections) free of federal or out-of-state influence. But I’m still waiting on Founders’ or Founding Document citations showing that I’m wrong…..
UPDATE 5, Aug. 25: Say Anything responds to David Keating’s response to this original post. Keating comes back. Neither of us is advocating regulating speech, David; you can talk, advertise, mail, and advocate to your heart’s content. And neither of us sees a constitution- or Founders-based reason why we’re wrong. We’re still waiting.
I agree with many of your points it is that the courts will say the outside ads are illegal. Silencing free speech. I want to see more conservatives elected nationwide. I am honest about my beliefs about who I want to give money to. In my state that is not really possible. Most of them are RHINO’s my district is very bad for that. But If I can help one candidate to win that is a conservative over a RHINO or LIberal. I think it is money well spent. Remember the law as written signed by President Bush bans all such ads 30 days prior to an election. THis same law is being used to say Conservative talk radio not liberal radio is a campaign donation.(Washington State) Again limiting discussion on the topics of interest. The Rhino’s and Democrats got together to protect their turf. Just my two cents worth.
Comment by David Anfinrud — August 24, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
#1, See my update 3 on CFR.
I’m (maybe naively) assuming that the courts would consider political advertising protected speech, no matter who does it, as long as who does it and where they’re from is disclosed.
I agree that current CFR is an incumbent-protection racket, as are the restrictions in many states on independent candidacies. Did you notice that Lieberman had ONE day to became an independent or an independent on-the-ballot run would have been impossible. What horse manure.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
It seems that you have not considered the Commerce Clause in Article I. If regulatory power existed only intrastate, then a limitation on interstate contributions would make sense. That is demonstrably not the case. Here the subject of a petition or object of influence is the regulation by the congress of interstate commerce, either direct or indirect.
Comment by Jackson T. Stephens, Jr — August 24, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
Matt Hurley is right and I will go even further: Congress makes more than just regulatory decisions for all of the states (unconstitutionally I might add), but financial and personal as well. As long as Ted Kennedy can reach his fat hands into the sovereign state of Ohio and take money from me, I have the right to provide finances to his opponent.
Not only do men have the right to peaceably assemble, they have the right to finance that meeting. I would oppose these restriction the same as I would oppose those who claim to recognize my 1st Amendment rights, but would put limits on the amount of ink that I buy or my 2nd Amendment and limit the number of weapons that I can buy.
I am sorry, but I do not believe that the founders would be on your side, they didn’t exactly give the feds all that much power after all.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — August 24, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
#3, the Commerce Clause is an interesting one, but I don’t think you could find evidence that The Founders considered politics and the electoral process a form of commerce. If you can, you’ve proven me wrong.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
#4, I don’t think it’s a matter of giving the feds power.
I think the whole thing may not have been discussed at all because it’s SOOOO blithering obvious that local elections would be funded by local people choosing among candidates who live in the local district. I daresay they would have thought cross-district political money flows so obviously immoral so as to be not worthy of addressing, or not even thought of.
Of course people have a right to assemble, exercise their free-speech rights, collect money to exercise those free speech rights. They just shouldn’t be able to give it a candidate in a place they’re not from. Again, I believe the Founders would find this so obvious that they wouldn’t have addressed it.
But you make good arguments, and actual evidence that the Founders felt as you do would be most welcome, even though they would prove me wrong.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 6:25 pm
#5. Politics or the electoral process is not the subject of the Commerce Clause (although advertising is). Those who are elected to regulate (tax) should be held accountable by those whom they regulate (tax). I suspect the Founders would agree. If I have a business in NV and live in another state, would you make an exception? Why stop there?
The Founders were keen on economic freedom and established representative government to insure it. If congressmen erode or promote it, with consequences for interstate commerce and I engage in interstate commerce, directly or indirectly, then I have the right to hold them accountable. To say otherwise is immoral.
#6 The only reason that the House of Representatives isn’t elected every year is because of the travel time to and from home during the Founders time. No Founder could conceive that travel, House district boundaries, much less information, would be so free of temporal and spatial bonds.
Comment by Jackson T. Stephens, Jr — August 24, 2006 @ 7:44 pm
The Bill of Rights, Amendment I.
“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
This includes no law on the right to assemble We the People’s dollars, if they are not able to assist a candidate by physically volunteering in person. (Another common phrase for the right to assemble is “freedom of association”. I don’t see that phrase in the actual Bill of Rights, Amendments 1-10 text in front of me.)
Pg 21 of “A Resource Guide, Bicentennial of the Constitution: Supplement IV, The Adoption of the Bill of Rights”
Comment by cornfed — August 24, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
Amendment I:
“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Now to look in the book to see if “petition” has anything to do with campaigning and contacting your politicians. It might mean the right to file lawsuits; to take your grievance to the judicial branch.
Well, I’m not seeing anything in page flipping. I got “freedom of association” without even looking it up. The “right to petition” is frosting, if it also applies.
Comment by cornfed — August 24, 2006 @ 10:25 pm
Practical perspectives:
1) The power of incumbency
Incumbency, and the name recognition that accompanies it, is very powerful. Incumbents also have the franking privilege, to use govt money to communicate to their constituents, and hence to promote themselves. Allowing outside groups to contribute to a challenger candidate can increase the opportunities to oust incumbents. If we amend the constitution to Term Limit the congress, then perhaps we should also consider limits on outsider contributions to candidates.
2) Individual vs Group accountability
I would be tempted to say outsiders could not contribute to candidates or, to enable challenges to incumbents, to limit outsider contributions to some percentage of expenditures; e.g. to 49.9%. However, money finds it way to places. If you limit outsider’s ability to contribute to a Candidate, then motivated outsiders will contribute to the Candidate’s Party. In donating, I would much rather send a check to a Candidate, who individual actions/votes can be monitored extensively, then to a Party, whose actions are less transparent and that is at greater risk of evolving into a manipulated machine. Similarly, as McCain–Feingold demonstrated, limiting outsider contributions to a Candidate still allows Issue Groups to assemble and advertise/speak.
Comment by cornfed — August 24, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
#7, If I take your response to #5 far enough on “holding accountable,” you’d have the right to vote in my district’s election because my congressperson voted a certain way on laws affecting your ability to do interstate commerce. You can hold her accountable through your free speech exercise, but I don’t see how you have the right to fund her opponent’s campaign.
The part of your response to #6 seems an admission that the Constitution “evolves.” As the world evolved, the Constitution should have been amended to clearly allow or disallow cross-jurisdictional campaign contributions, and it wasn’t. I don’t understand why we just assume that they’re okay.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
#8, I know that what you have on assembling dollars is a common interpretation, but I do not know of any evidence showing that the Founders would have agreed with that when they wrote the Constitution.
I think your *petition for a redress of grievances* is primarily a judicial matter, but even if you could bring your grievances to Congress, that phrase does not encompass donating to campaigns.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
#10, I recognize the practical issues. But isnt’t the ability to rub elbows with the powerful and assemble a raft of outside contributors THE big advantage of incumbency right now? A challenger’s ability to get money from outside his or her district ordinarily pales in comparison. If incumbents have to fund their campaign with local money, you would expect it to force them to pay attention to the wishes of the locals.
I’m wrestling with what to do about parties. I also don’t think the founders, who were of a citizen-legislator mindset, anticipated that political parties would fund individual campaigns. I would think that The Founders would have expected their role to be limited to encouraging residents to contibute to their local-jurisdiction candidates and providing boots on the ground for campaigns.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 11:08 pm
#11. Don’t be absurd. One man one vote.
My response to #6 was simply to point out that the Founders didn’t have a reason to address the notion of campaign donations across distrcit or state lines. They could have restricted newspaper ownership, a much more effective campaign tool in their day, across state lines and didn’t. Do you believe that the Founders would err on the side of restriction or freedom?
Comment by Jackson T. Stephens, Jr — August 24, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
#14, I’m with you on the press point. And of course they would “err on the side of freedom,” but I don’t think they even conceived that “freedom” would mean I get to give money to a congressional candidate somewhere else. I don’t even think it was on their radar.
As I read through some of the Federalist papers, I’m struck by how the states were almost seen as mini-nations with the exception of common defense and regulating commerce between states. That mind-set would seem to, in the absence of some affirmative assertion somewhere, which I haven’t found, preclude the idea of cross-state campaign contributions. I don’t think they anticipated that anyone would even consider the idea, and that they might have seen it as so immoral that no upright person would even think about doing it.
Comment by TBlumer — August 24, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
(Just to let ya know, I’d not noticed the CFG response when I put in #8-9 on freedom of assembly and petition. I hope offering those didn’t see like ‘rubbing it in’ for pushing the CFG version; those were my independent reactions to the initial article. I am finding myself agreeing with CFG philosophically for the most part, although not necessarily their approach to making the argument.)
Your evidence criteria seems to create a dilemma in “proving” you wrong. The Founders, as embodied in their primary document The Constitution, were focused on how the govt would operate. They didn’t spill much ink on who/how representatives got into the govt, just on what the representatives could do once there. In your words, “I don’t even think it was on their radar.” Therefore, the criteria for “a Founding Document citations” creates a dilemma.
Which leads to the thought that the absence of Founders evidence is the proof in itself.
“I know that what you have on assembling dollars is a common interpretation, but I do not know of any evidence showing that the Founders would have agreed with that when they wrote the Constitution.” The Founders were busy documenting how the govt would operate. It was obvious to them that the Power was held by The People. They didn’t think much about how campaigns, and the money to fund them, creates its own element of Power. I distinctly remember becoming aware, in high school government class, that our two Party system is nowhere in the Constitution. The Founders certainty in Power to the People is demonstrated by the absence of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The Constitutional Convention Founders believed that anything NOT written in that document was reserved to the People. The government could only limit campaign contributions if there was an enumerated power enabling them to do so. “In strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations.” Therefore, I don’t even need a Bill of Rights item to justify my right to give my money (my Property) to whom I please. Inclusion of the Bill of Rights was meant to be an additional security ensuring protecting the rights of the people; not a means to take away inherent rights just because they’re not itemized in Amendments 1-10. (Above quotes from Federalist #84)
Please show a Founding Document citation that govt SHOULD have any role in campaign finance. Heck, even any role in campaigns at all. [Will look at Federalist #52 later. gotta go.]
Comment by cornfed — August 25, 2006 @ 7:17 am
#16, re freedom of assembly and redress, not at all. You came at it slightly differently.
Your point about the default being that I can give money to anyone, even if the Bill of Rights is not there, is a good one.
But I think they came from a mindset that it would not be moral, even from a freedom-of-speech standpoint, for a non-resident, or at least an out-of-state resident, to attempt to influence an election somewhere else, and that if in fact such influence were to be attempted, it would be so obviously counterproductive (resented by residents and seized on by opponents) that no one would be dumb enough to even try it.
Fed 59 from Hamilton talks about this:
THE natural order of the subject leads us to consider, in this place, that provision of the Constitution which authorizes the national legislature to regulate, in the last resort, the election of its own members. It is in these words: *The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.*
Is this only the timing and mechanics of election day, or does it (the *manner*) include campaigns? I would think that it includes campaigns, and leaves the primary regulation of them up to the states (take that, McCain — what is the *last resort* justification for CFR?).
The importance of this IMO is that the states were seen as the nexus of elections and the campaigns leading up to them. This implies (I think strongly) that The Founders expected that at a minimum intrastate elections AND campaigns (meaning everything but the Prez) should and would be conducted free of influence by anyone outside the state.
Carrying this forward to today, because of the 17th Amendment, I believe at a minimum that the Founders, if here today, would expect that all campaign money for Senate and congressional races would come from in-state sources, and that a moral person would not attempt to interfere with state/voter sovreignty in another state. So I am conceding that they would not have a constitutional objection to, say, Clevelanders contributing to Cincinnati congressional elections. I would still hold out and suggest that they would have believed it to be immoral to do so. I also think that if individual STATES decided to prohibit cross-jurisdictional intrastate congressional contributions, they would not have objected on constitutional grounds.
The sad thing in the extra-constitutional environment of today is that if the states tried to do what I just mentioned, or to prohibit out-of-state contributions to senate and congressional candidates, they would be hauled into court and almost definitely lose, even though the states are supposed to be the primary regulators of elections and the campaigns leading up to them, and appear to have every original-intent power to do so.
Comment by TBlumer — August 25, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Tom: I don’t believe that there is support from the founding father’s for either of our positions, other than their obvious support for a government with little power to regulate the actions of the people.
That said, since the constitution would allow states (not the feds) to impose the limits that you propose, I must appeal to your tolerance of the interests of the people to have a say about who imposes taxes on them. Until Congress is forced to live within their proper constitution powers, it is tryanny to allow them no voice.
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — August 25, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
#18, I am assuming you mean it is tyranny to allow out-of-jurisdiction people no voice, given the ability of people we cannot elect or de-elect to impose their will on us.
There is not anything direct I can hang my hat on, except the general principle, as you recognized, of state sovreignty being the default position with certain well-defined exceptions. I do not think I carry the burden of proof, but I can see where a person could reasonably disagree with that.
We basically have a chicken-egg thing going —
– Will voting strict original-intent consitutionalists in across the board now enable us to fix the problems once they are in, or will the structure that currently exists cause the next wave to go south just like the 1994 Gingrich Revolution people did? There is marginally more accountability now that 12 years ago, but I would not want to overexaggerate it.
– Or would starting a national movement organized around the idea that not one dime of direct contributions should come from out of district or out of state, and withholding votes from ANYONE who accepts out of state direct contributions, with no exceptions, regardless of philosophy, eventually get us a Congress and Senate that will get the government off our backs?
Even then, the national movement would have the *legacy issue* of the war chests of incumbents and retired congresscritters to deal with. Arghh. Or do you combine it with the idea of Moderate Mainstream that all incumbents should be thrown out, again regardless of philosophy, so we can start totally fresh?
http://www.notoincumbents.org/
Comment by TBlumer — August 25, 2006 @ 6:19 pm
“If incumbents have to fund their campaign with local money, you would expect it to force them to pay attention to the wishes of the locals.”
Well, see, local-only contributions can themselves be a problem. Suggested reading: “BOSS: Richard Daley of Chicago” by Mike Royko.
Comment by cornfed — August 25, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
As a personal choice, consistent with a libertarian ‘mind your own business’ (MYOB)mentality, I would not donate to a Candidate outside my chain of representation.
Yet also consistent with MYOB, I would not support legally preventing someone else from wasting their money on lotsa redundant ads into my district. I’ll make up my own darn mind, thank you very much; and only me and the voting booth will know for certain how I voted. Although it is sometimes a challenge to maintain faith in my fellow citizens/voters, ‘we have a Republic, if we can keep it.’
I sympathize with the emotional roller-coaster memories from OH-02 race.
But the emotional empathy doesn’t change my person intellect/opinion on this topic.
As an Iowa native (hence the Cornfed moniker), it just seems obvious and inevitable that Outside money will be there, in the advertising. It (campaign donations) may be in the Candidate’s coffer, the Party, or an Issue/527 group, but it’ll be there attempting to influence me. Just listen, smile politely, and know that you/voter always get the last word in the debate at the ballot box.
You/voter and only you get the last word (and the sore losers on 2004 OH need to get with reality).
Very respectfully
Comment by cornfed — August 26, 2006 @ 12:06 am
If someone does choose to donate outside their representation chain, I would not call it “immoral”; doesn’t rise to a sin for confession. I *would* call it rude, like the neighbor letting their dog conduct business in my yard. Sometimes also “unethical”, if the intent is personal gain, possibly rising to illegal/immoral bribery.
(I cut this for length, but mostly because the morality element is more one-to-one personal. You can keep to yourself, or post if you want to. It was the second paragraph, I think. V/R C.)
Comment by cornfed — August 26, 2006 @ 12:12 am
This is an easy one, as I believe you’re reading the Constitution upside down.
Nothing in the Constitution specifically gives Congress this power. So, I would default to the Tenth Ammendment. Therefore, it would take a Constitutional ammendment for Congress to gain (IMHO) legal juristiction in this area.
Federalism should be at play here, because the way I read it, States retain the right to regulate the financing of political campaigns for their own Federal delegations.
Heller’s position is doubly hypocritical in that he looks to the rest of the country to regulate Nevada’s campaign finance, while complaining about outsider interference. I would expect more of this Clintonian doublespeak in the future from him. He showed his true colors with his knee-jerk “we need a Federal law” rubbish, rather than conservatively taking his grievance to the Nevada State Legislature.
Though I agree, and follow your “reverse” logic quite readily (i.e. I think it’s a good idea to keep the financing within the legal boundaries of the constituency), I completely disagree with your suggestion that since the Constitution doesn’t “prevent” Congress, then Congress has a “right”. If that were true, there would be no purposeful meaning to the Tenth Ammendment.
Comment by Robert Murawski — August 26, 2006 @ 1:59 am
#20, 21, 22 —
Knowing a bit about Chicago, I can agree that it was more than a bit corrupt, but I don’t think allowing campaign contributions from Evanston, Waukegan, Hinsdale, or Homewood would have changed that, or would even have been proper.
I would have to agree that the constitutionally proper place for such legislation would be in the states (and be extension, McCain-Feingold has no right to exist). Today’s courts probably wouldn’t allow it, but that doesn’t change the fact that the states are the proper venue, and that the courts would be wrong if they overturned state efforts. An interesting mental hurdle to overcome for a state considering it is whether doing so would make their Senators and reps less important, influential, or powerful than those in the rest of the states. I don’t think so, but I can see the argument coming up.
“Immoral” may be incorrect to describe how the Founders would have seen giving money to out-of-jurisdication candidates; maybe “unthinkable” is more apt. But I believe they would have seen it as unethical, and “back then” there wasn’t much of a line between unethical and immoral, or right v. wrong.
Comment by TBlumer — August 26, 2006 @ 10:50 am
#23 —
Thanks for your thoughts. They made the time poured into this post worthwhile.
I definitely agree that Heller’s position is especially out of whack in the context of federalism’s proper identification of state v. federal rights. And as I noted and I’m sure you would agree based on the 10th Amendment, McCain-Feingold has no legal right to exist.
Comment by TBlumer — August 26, 2006 @ 10:53 am
Should be engraved into this frieze.
Comment by Robert Murawski — August 26, 2006 @ 3:14 pm
Humble apologies for my previous unlinked post…
I meant to link .
Comment by Robert Murawski — August 26, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
#27, no problem. I posted the one that didn’t have the link and deleted the one that did before realizing there even was a link. I found the deleted one in my trash and added the link from it.
And I got to learn what a frieze is.
Comment by TBlumer — August 26, 2006 @ 9:24 pm