Still Too Much Freedom Of Speech Out There
In a close vote, the House passed new restrictions on soft money contributions. Now that the Supreme Court has said that messing with political speech is perfectly okay, I guess the sky's the limit.
Of course, this vote had a twist. In the past, it was Democrats who supported campaign finance reform, figuring "getting money out of politics" would benefit them. What happened, though, was rich Democrats funneled cash to "527" groups to get their message out. Suddenly, money in politics made the Dems feel warm and nice, while the Republicans thought it would be a good time to limit it even more.
So, sure enough, the vote was along party lines. Apparently, both sides are willing to slice up our freedoms as finely as possible, as long as it gets them elected.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:27 AM
2 Comments:
As with issues regarding the filibuster, immigration, voter registration, leaking CIA secrets etc....
As I recall political parties are not mentioned in the founding documents (except maybe in the scowling references to faction in the Federalist Papers).
Would a concerted policy to diminish the power of parties help ?(ie make it easier for independents to run for office)
That's cerainly correct--parties are an invention of tradition, not of law. If anything, the Founding Fathers were suspicious of them. But the tradition goes back almost to the beginning of our Constitutional republic, so I don't see any way out.
On the plus side, it does lead to a certain stability--compare our system to the troubles of the coalition governments other democracies have to deal with.
On the negative side, aside from making it tough to introduce new ideas (that often start in third parties and are co-opted), our government spends an awful lot of time in maneuvers designed to help those in power stay in power.
In other words, who would you get to champion a "concerted policy" to lessen party power? No one has enough power outside parties to do much.
Post a Comment
<< Home