Maybe I missed it... (campaign finance reform question)

[Cicero]

... but I haven't seen all that much discussion about SCOTUS upholding the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws. In fact, so far most of all the discussion has been on "conservative" sites, like townhall.com. I've seen it called everything from a necessary first step towards total public financing of campaigns, to the most serious setback for the 1st Amendment since the Alien and Sedition Act of 1793, and everything in between. But, again, most of the discussion I've seen has been on "conservative" sites.

Do you support the decision? Oppose it? And why?

(I'll reserve comment for the moment...)

Just wanting to know. :think:

Later,

On edit: added to subject line

[Julien Sorel]

1. I think it creates as many problems as it solves.

The recent issues with the Deanites crying about the Osama ad, for example, is going to come up again and again, because people who cannot donate money to their candidate, will then donate money to defeating their candidate's opponent. That means you will see a lot more attack ads, and attack ads frankly, suck.

I think it also helps the Republicans. There are far more wired Republicans with disposable income than there are Democrats (Bush has 6 million people on his e-list, for example), and when push comes to shove, they will out raise Democrats at will. Dean wants 2 million people to donate $100? How about 6 million people donating $100? $200? More? Middle class America is largely Republican, and they're the people with the money; by contrast, lots of Democratic money comes from very large donations from individuals or industries.

It's nice to see an attempt made, but I think when all is said and done, hard caps on spending are going to be needed, and restricting the types of ads that can be run by third parties makes sense. You run into 1st amendment issues, but it's the only way to cut down on the negative ads and spending that defeats the purpose of CFR.

[Cicero]

6. Who would the spending limits apply to?

The candidates or the contributers? When I say the contributers, I mean something like a total limit on how much a person can contribute to any kind of political speech. In either case, I think it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Later,

[Cicero]

2. Kick

I know there's more people out there with opinions to give...

Later,

[arewethereyet]

3. terrible legislation

and I cannot for the life of me figure out why it was referred to as reform.

just wait, you will see how bad it is later on.

[Yupster]

4. Who cares?

The loophole they put in about interest groups running ads means that anyone can still donate just as much as they want to, so what's the difference.

I understood the part about the interest groups so the Sierra Club could run ads about the environment and the NRA could run ads about the second amendment, but then when Soros pledged the $ 10 million, not for education on an issue, but to defeat Bush, and then when Ickes set up a group specifically for the issue of electing Democrats, at that point campaign finance reform became a joke. Disappointing that you want something for 10 years, and then when it's finally passed, it's made into a joke, pretty much by the same people who said they wanted it.

Gosh that sounds pretty depressing.

I'm shutting my business of 13 years and going to work for a large company at the end of the year, so I guess I'm worried. Need to get optimistic about it.

[Eric J in MN]

5. An individual can still give $25,000 to a national party

An individual can still give $25,000 to a national party.

McCain-Feingold doesn't go far enough.