Saturday, December 1, 2007

Doyle Calls for Campaign Finance Reform in Wisconsin

Doyle wants to take away your freedom of speech:
MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Gov. Jim Doyle called on the Legislature Friday to pass a campaign finance reform package that includes public financing for Supreme Court races and other measures that have traditionally divided lawmakers.


"I think what he’s doing is he’s basically saying to the Legislature we really have to do something on this," Erpenbach said. "There may not be a deal on this, but we have to do something."


"I just think it’s in everybody’s interest to sit down and do this," Heck said. "I don’t think either party wants to be viewed as the party that’s an obstacle to political reform in Wisconsin."

In addition to 100 percent public financing for Supreme Court races, Doyle also said the proposal should ban fundraising from the moment the state budget is introduced until it is passed. It should also establish a system of matching grants for some candidates who take public financing and increase spending limits for candidates accepting public financing.

Erpenbach said the bill will also do something to reign in issue ads paid for by special interest groups.


Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, said the Republican-controlled Assembly will take up Doyle’s call and debate the reforms but he did not say what, if any, parts he would support.

Assembly Majority Leader Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald, R-Horicon, said there may be some parts of the proposal that are workable but he is opposed to public financing of campaigns.

Isn't that just great? Even the Republicans can't save you now. They don't even know how to object to the abridgment of our first amendment rights. So now what? We have to pay taxes to pay for candidates we HATE? If Hitler got enough signatures to be on the ballot, he would get just as much funding as say, Jesus. Does this sound fair? I think not. I enjoy donating money to candidates I like. I did this with Ron Paul. Why should I be FORCED to fund candidates who I would hate to see make it on the ballot? And who decides how much money each candidate gets? A million? Five million? Where do you think this comes from? That's right: YOU. Even if you have never voted and never intend to vote.

They might find ways to work around that last point, but the fact still stands that I could not give money to someone I like; it would be illegal. Does this sound fair to you? I would hope not.

Some problems with Campaign Finance Reform From the Heritage Foundation:

  • A political candidate has an absolute First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of his own money expressly advocating his own election (unless he voluntarily waives that right in order to receive public financing).

  • Individuals and organizations also have an absolute First Amendment right to spend an unlimited amount of their own money expressly advocating the election or defeat of particular candidates so long as there is no coordination between the individual or organization and the candidates. And governments may not presume that there is coordination under certain scenarios--unless there really is some.

Other articles include John Samples from USA Today, and CATO Policy Analysis 547.
Hopefully these can help you decide to oppose campaign finance reform.

No comments: