An Op-Ed I co-authored with Sean Parnell from the Center for Competitive Politics appears in today's Charlotte Observer and answers those on the left who want to expand "voter-owned" elections. Forgetting for a moment the constitutional and moral questions as to right and wrong, how can anyone in this time of economic turmoil suggest spending scarce public dollars on political consultants?
I say we do away with all campaign limits and let our money talk for us. Let’s put our 1st amendment to good use. Transparency is necessary but limitations are not.
i would say yes and here are a few facts to back it up here is a post from nc policy watch and chase foster,
“I think the primary reason is the fact that the program has worked. Voter-Owned Elections have widened candidate participation, increased grassroots campaigning, and most importantly dramatically reduced the role of special interests in elections for the races where it is available.
Before the program, 73% of appellate judge’s campaign money used to come from lawyers or litigation-interested groups. Now its just 14%. In 2004, 66% of the itemized money raised by Comm. of Insurance Jim Long came from the insurance industry or other groups regulated by the insurance department. Last year, that number dropped to less than 5% for Commissioner of Insurance Wayne Goodwin, primarily because of the program.
These are real results. This is a real shift in the role of special interests in our elections.”
Please come live in Guilford County where the special interest rule the local elections where the chosen few get the money and the special interest pull the strings.
It is time for this idea of voter owned elections to play a part in the process.
Yes droopy dog,
Much better that the “special interest” groups funnel their money to 527 groups to spend money in a much less transparent way supporting their chosen candidates, while leveraging the small bit of qualifying donations to unleash taxpayer subsidies for campaign consultants to help candidates you don’t agree with. That way, more money is involved in the process, candidates are still beholden to the special interest groups that helped qualify them for the taxpayer subsidies, and our liberty is eroded just a bit further. Super plan!
Thinking that taxpayer-funded campaigns will rid politics of special interests is completely naive. Do you think they’ll just give up and get jobs selling shoes instead?
As long as so much power is concentrated in the hands of so few (politicians), the money will continue to flow so that organized groups can gain favor or resist harm from lawmakers. This system merely gives politicians more power over our tax dollars.
give this process a chance, I would like to see it implemented and if it is riped for curtailing these 527 groups fine with me. Let’s give it a try.
DD,
This “process” has been tried in a number of states, and the promised benefits simply don’t materialize.
http://www.nccivitas.org/media/publication-archive/policy-brief/voter-owned-elections-cleaning-campaign-financing-or-limiting
Simply because you would like to see it implemented is not sufficient reason for everyone else to be forced to fund it.
By the way, it won’t curtail the 527s, it will be a windfall for them.
The problem is too much government power – that’s what attracts the special interest groups. But your favored “process” attempts to solve the problem of too much government power by handing the government even more power. And as we all well know, the more power government has, the less freedom we have.