"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.” Unfortunately, politicians and the Supreme Court don’t seem to understand that no means no. Instead, they have foisted upon us complex regulation of campaign finance. The upshot? Case in point:
Obama general counsel Bob Bauer today sent a second, sharper letter to the Justice Department, directly attacking the Dallas billionaire funding a harsh attack ad, Harold Simmons.
“We reiterate our request that the Department of Justice fulfill its commitment to take prompt action to investigate and to prosecute the American issues Project, and we further request that the Department of Justice investigate and prosecute Howard (sic) Simmons for a knowing and willful violation of the individual aggregate contribution limits,” he wrote.
Bob Bauer is a serial offender in trying to criminalize speech that disadvantages his clients, but it’s a bipartisan sport. We ought to junk the campaign finance laws and replace them with a simple disclosure regime.
Just a reminder: John McCain sponsored these campaign finance laws.
Next entry: Memo to Obama's Pro-Life Supporters
Previous entry: Romney: McCain earned his homes; Obama didn't
Money is not speech. Giving money to someone else is not speech. It is a donation. It is not “speech” when I give old clothes to the Goodwill or drop some money in the red tin at Christmas; they are donations.
The one problem I do have with campaign finance laws, which, if I recall, was not part of the original McCain-Fiengold law is the 30/60 day quiet zones.
Although, I do tend to support the elimination of limits and full and complete disclosures. I just wonder though, given that we’ve seen the creation of PACs and 501c3’s and everything else, all designed to hide who the people donating are, what are the odds that a disclosure regime would actually work? What’s to stop someone from creating shell trusts or corporations to make the donations?
Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle?