Anyway, in a must pass appropriations bill, a provision has been added that would allow for the unlimited transfer of funds between leadership PACs and the national parties. Generally, I am against lots of campaign finance regulation for a variety of reasons. I don't necessarily see this idea as something bad in and of itself. What I find offensive is the below the radar screen method of attaching this proposal to an appropriations bill.
If the sponsor of this idea wants to get it passed into law, fine, then do it through the normal legislative process, out in the open and subject to attack, defense and debate. The Cincinnati Post remarks:
We've never been big cheerleaders for the McCain-Feingold approach, mainly because experience has shown that money will make its way into politics in much the same way that water will make its way downhill. Better, in our view, to focus on making the flow transparent, and to write the contribution rules in a way that doesn't give one party or one special interest a particular advantage over others. Moreover, while we're more willing than he is to accept contribution limits as the price for curbing the corrupting influence of special interest money, we share McConnell's apprehension over the free speech limitations that are inherent in the McCain-Feingold scheme.
Still, if we're going to change the rules, it should be done only after a full and open debate.
I agree. I have some definitive remarks on leadership PACs to come.
In the OTB Traffic Jam
No comments:
Post a Comment