http://www.positiveliberty.com Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:54:19 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 http://www.positiveliberty.com/babka#comment-636319 bill greene Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:40:02 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/babka/#comment-636319 Jim, I have a question related to your campaign finance reform expertise: The supreme court case against McCain-Finegold was a mixed decision. It does appear that the ability to spend money to promote a candidate for elected office is a form of free speech, although it does seem debatable to equate writing a check to talking out loud. However, the issue has come to revolve around three points: Can government limit the amount that is spent, the amount that is given, or the source ? These require technical Constitutional interpretations that could arguably go either way. At the national level, all attempts at reform have been designed so full of loopholes that they merely create new devious ways to circumvent the law. But, as in the case or welfare reform, some progress is being made at the state level. Iowa, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas prohibit labor unions, regulated industries and associations from contributing to candidates' campaigns. This has the desired practical effect of reducing the influence of special interest groups that have a clear agenda-driven reason for their contributions. Throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights the intent of the Founders was clear : -to exalt the rights and freedom of individuals. The whole idea of a democratic republic is that the individual citizen is paramount; the government exists at his pleasure; and that the elected representatives are put into their office solely to represent the best interests of the citizenry. It is also true that the collective choices of a people--the "wisdom of crowds"--is only possible when every individual acts independently based on his or her own judgment. Accordingly, I suggest that the free speech righ belongs only to individuals. Democratic voting rights are meant to be extended only to individuals--we don't let General Motors vote--so all corporate organizations should be removed from the process. Jim, I have a question related to your campaign finance reform expertise: The supreme court case against McCain-Finegold was a mixed decision. It does appear that the ability to spend money to promote a candidate for elected office is a form of free speech, although it does seem debatable to equate writing a check to talking out loud. However, the issue has come to revolve around three points: Can government limit the amount that is spent, the amount that is given, or the source ? These require technical Constitutional interpretations that could arguably go either way. At the national level, all attempts at reform have been designed so full of loopholes that they merely create new devious ways to circumvent the law. But, as in the case or welfare reform, some progress is being made at the state level. Iowa, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas prohibit labor unions, regulated industries and associations from contributing to candidates’ campaigns. This has the desired practical effect of reducing the influence of special interest groups that have a clear agenda-driven reason for their contributions. Throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights the intent of the Founders was clear : -to exalt the rights and freedom of individuals. The whole idea of a democratic republic is that the individual citizen is paramount; the government exists at his pleasure; and that the elected representatives are put into their office solely to represent the best interests of the citizenry. It is also true that the collective choices of a people–the “wisdom of crowds”–is only possible when every individual acts independently based on his or her own judgment. Accordingly, I suggest that the free speech righ belongs only to individuals. Democratic voting rights are meant to be extended only to individuals–we don’t let General Motors vote–so all corporate organizations should be removed from the process.

]]> http://www.positiveliberty.com/babka#comment-480424 Julio Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:20:34 +0000 http://positiveliberty.com/babka/#comment-480424 Proud Downsize DC financial supporter. Thanks for all the good work. Proud Downsize DC financial supporter. Thanks for all the good work.

]]>