If campaign finance reform is agreed by most to be a good thing then why do Republican groups keep opposing it

Question

"Court Overturns Limits on Political Ads, Part of the Campaign Finance Law"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/22/washington/22campaign.html?ex=1324443600&en=2de18bd5e127daf4&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

" Using its corporate treasury, the group had paid for advertisements denouncing Senate filibusters of judicial nominees and urging viewers to contact either Senator Russell D. Feingold, who was up for re-election that year, or the state’s other Democratic senator, Herb Kohl, who was not.

Under the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, groups wanting to broadcast advertisements that name federal candidates within 60 days before a general election, or 30 days before a primary, are required to follow strict rules on how they pay for them. The law requires that donors be disclosed and caps contributions to prevent secretive groups from advocating for or against candidates in thinly disguised advertisements known as issue ads."

Answer 1

Simple - if money is the criteria for having your views get heard, the rich obviously have greater power than the average person, and the Republicans are the party of the rich and the richer.

One voice, one person = one vote - advantage Dems.

One dollar = one vote, advantage Republicans.

The Republicans have been able to push junk issues and junk science and junk advocacy simply through the will and weight of the finances they put into it. If the playing field were leveled and actual facts and parity in expressing viewpoints were allowed, their power would be greatly diminished.

Answer 2

You have skirted around this issue with other questions before.

I'm with you on the obvious need for improvement. But the Supreme Court ruled Money is Speech. And Case law goes all the way back to the Patriarch Abraham.

The Key is for non Red State voters to approach this more like investment bankers than trying to win the Champagne Finance Lotto.

Bankers are constantly working on how to get a penny from everyone. Look at the Wall Street crowd. A broker that makes $100M just got .33 of a cent from every American.

The DNC needs this strategy to compete with the big lump sums of the RNC.

Go big Red Go

Answer 3

Historically, the party in the majority, sidesteps this issue; while, the party in the minority vocally proposes reform. How do we want the campaigns financed? Send an e-mail to your rep., find a grassroots organization; the bottom line is, we have to get involved. A campaign in support of addressing the "Seven deadlies" and begin with GREED.


These people are our representatives. They, ultimately, do answer to us, what are we demanding? When they act against our interests; we have to take action.

Honestly, which force, "good vs evil", is being steadily empowered and emboldened? Who wants to "Stay the course"? Who doesn't? The government knows, because GWB and others consider the Constitution to be "a **piece of paper". [Rhetorical question: Do you agree with his assessment?]

Answer 4

The Republicans went to the ACLU and claimed campaign finance reform violated their free speech. When the system works in your favor, why do anything to change it? Republicans win elections because their big bucks backers saturate the media with so many lies that gullible Americans believe them. Examples; Kerry didn't really earn his medals. This is an insult to every veteran who ever served, won a purple heart or any other medal and the system by which medals are awarded. People still buy into it. There are still people that buy into that idiotic claim that Gore stated that he invented the internet.

Answer 5

I understand your overall concern about big money influencing politics, but there are First Amendment considerations, too.

"...if the government put caps on the amount of money one could give to the NAACP or an abortion rights group, my fellow liberals would cry foul and point to the First Amendment. By starving those groups of resources from deep-pocket donors, the government would be effectively constraining their communicative reach. Yet, the same analysis holds for political campaigns".

Answer 6

Because any reform restricts money and in Buckley v Valeo the USSC decided that money is speech and donations are protected by the first amendment. Such as if I like what a congressman says and he says what I want him to I can pay to make sure that speech is secured in congress. They look at it as unconstitutional and they have a valid argument as precedent has been set. There are Democrats who also appose it so it isn't just a Republican thing.

Answer 7

Because with finance reforms that means they do not get as much money or kickbacks from corporations... think about it they are making laws restricting themselves... would you make a law saying you cannot drink more than 2 glasses of water, no because that would not be the best decision for you.

Answer 8

OK
First who is "MOST"

Second Freedom of speech, I was shocked it was Constitutional (I think it will be over turned sooner or later)

Why can the news talking heads keep doing there stories under guise of NEWS

People complain that we are losing are rights because of the Patriot act What do you call this???

Answer 9

If you think it's just one sided you're crazy. The Democrats have fought it just as hard. Neither party wants to give up the huge sums of money they raise for campaigning. You want to see real reform? Limit the maximum any person can give to 1000 bucks and stop allowing corporate donations. You'd see the crooks from both parties come un-glued!!!!

Answer 10

Without campaign reform, we end up with the best government money can buy.... that is not a good thing for this country.