Campaign Finance Reform vs Freedom of Speech
Wow. I have a newfound respect for Tom Delay.
Here is one way to look at the issue:
If pornography is protected under the First Amendment, and I believe it is, why would campaign contributions not be? Neither are forms of pure speech, and neither was specifically addressed by the Founding Fathers, as far as I know. However, under the assumption that freedom of speech exists primarily to protect political dissent, wouldn't it be more obvious that campaign contributions fall more in line with original intent than pornography?
Besides the Constitutional protections, which I believe do exist, campaign finance reform really doesn't accomplish anything. There will always be loopholes. The media will gain an enormous increase in power if they are able to say whatever they want, and politicians are limited to a certain amount of speech. I think the best argument against campaign finance reform is that it treats the symptoms and not the sickness. Why do we abhor big money corporations having a huge influence on government? Because government has the ability to use its power to satisfy the special interests. If we limit government power, we reduce the desire for outside influences to control the politicians.
Here is reference I love to use:
As James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution, often pointed out, the General Welfare Clause, which has been used to rationalize much of the post-1937 legislation, was not intended to give Congress the power to do whatever it wanted as long as it was to benefit the "general welfare" of the people. On the contrary, the clause was meant to be a restriction on congressional authority. What it meant (and still means) is that within the enumerated powers of Congress, those powers were only to be used for the general welfare, and not for "factions," or what we now call special interests.
