Oh man, I must really be getting under the skin of the folks at Policy Watch. First, Fitzsimon devotes most of this article to my one-man "ferocious campaign" opposing taxpayer subsidized campaigns (see my reply in a previous post), now Scofield puts on the tinfoil hat and imagines conspiracy accusations galore in response to my "Conservative Perspective" on the same topic.
I’ve already written quite a bit on this, but Scofield’s article is too juicy to pass up.
First, he uses language like "market fundamentalist groups" and "the authors claim" in reference to my conservative perspective piece. Why the use of plural nouns? I’m just one guy!
He then accuses me of claiming that "public financing is a nefarious plot by progressive nonprofits." After I cleaned off my computer from the water I spat out due to laughter, I realized that I’m not even really sure what the word ‘nefarious’ means.
Additionally, he lists my supposed "allegations" – each one funnier than the last. For example, allegation #1 is that I claim public financing is a "scheme to give more power to the unions and 527s." In the article I merely mention how public campaign financing’s qualifying funds mechanism could empower such groups. This point is not exactly far fetched given the fact that this is what happened in Arizona’s gubernatorial race (as referenced by the Arizona Republic). Nowhere in my piece is the word "scheme" ever used.
Even better is when he attempts to refute my claim that certain nonprofits who support taxpayer subsidized elections try to themselves influence legislation – saying I am "simply wrong." To prove me wrong, he actually affirms my statement! He says "the NC Justice Center…lobbies on behalf…" and also "the State Employees Association does, of course, lobby…" I can’t make this stuff up, folks.
The funniest part must be when he demands that "Civitas (meaning me) ought to be embarrassed and apologize for even implying something improper." Read the article again – no such implications were made. But, I guess I should apologize for pointing out the hypocrisy of groups who themselves try to influence legislators complaining about groups who… try to influence legislators. My bad.
Lastly, one topic is conspicuous by its absence from Scofield’s piece. He never addresses my primary objection to taxpayer subsidized elections – the fact that it co-opts tax dollars to support candidates people completely disagree with. Why address my main point when you can conjure up images of corporate and big money interests joining me in a smoke-filled room as we plan how to accuse our opponents with "bold misstatements"?
For li’l old me to garner so much attention from these guys is actually quite flattering. Plus, I get to laugh myself silly at their desperate attempt to paint anything I write as trying to expose some imaginary "secret plots."