Home subscribe manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

Opinion
Apr. 23, 2008
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'

Campaign finance law back before the high court

Another week, another Supreme Court case on campaign finance reform.

Or so it seems.

Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

Most Popular Stories
  • ERIN NEFF: Sarah Palin: It's just wrong
  • LETTERS: One angry man speaks for millions
  • EDITORIAL: Risky loans
  • EDITORIAL: A failure of leadership
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: The biggest armed robbery in history
  • LETTERS: To fix crisis, vote incumbents out
  • EDITORIAL: Public records assault
  • LETTERS: Bill must hold CEOs accountable
  • LETTERS: Crushing freedom for the 'greater good'
  • EDITORIAL: VP debate unlikely to change minds



    • On Tuesday, the justices again tackled the issue of money in politics when they heard yet another challenge to the 2002 McCain-Feingold monstrosity.

    This time, the debate centers on a provision in the law that allows candidates to exceed certain spending limits if they're running against a wealthy opponent funding his own campaign.

    There's no limit on how much of his own money a candidate can spend -- the courts have correctly held that capping such expenditures would violate an individual's First Amendment right to express himself.

    So to "level the playing field" the law allows candidates facing such an opponent to receive larger contributions. And it also lets political parties spend unlimited amounts of money to help someone facing a wealthy opponent, while limiting contributions from the party of the wealthy candidate.

    These provisions were challenged by Jack Davis of New York, a millionaire Democrat who lost races in 2004 and 2006 to Republican Rep. Tom Reynolds. The law says "we're going to make it easier for your opponent to beat you," said Mr. Davis' lawyer on Tuesday. He also argued that the law protects incumbents who can more easily tap campaign contributors.

    He's right, of course. Most "campaign finance" reform amounts to an incumbent protection racket designed to make it more difficult for challengers to compete. Justice Antonin Scalia picked up on that theme when he said he was "deeply suspicious" of the regulations in question. "Do you think we should trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us?" he said during Tuesday's arguments.

    Regardless of how the court rules, the case again highlights the Byzantine lengths to which "good government" reformers will go in their odd quest to limit the role of money in American politics. Whether it's a command-and-control regulatory structure that bans Americans from advocating for or against a specific candidate as an election nears, or the creation of arbitrary financing rules that apply to some office-seekers but not to others, the efforts are constitutionally troubling and counterproductive, as the money simply flows through new and different channels, leading supporters of "campaign finance reform" to then call for even more interventions.

    And repeat.

    If these so-called reformers truly sought to limit the role of money in Washington, they would be advocating for a more limited federal role in any number of endeavors. Instead, most of them are cheerleaders for the continuing expansion of the regulatory state.

    One of the worst Supreme Court decisions of the past decade came in 2003 when the court's liberal wing carried the day in a 5-4 decision upholding McCain-Feingold, essentially ruling that the quest for the perfect campaign was more important than the First Amendment. If conservatives on the court now have to dismantle McCain-Feingold piecemeal, so be it. But it would be far preferable if they just blew it up altogether.



    Leave Your Comment 10 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Vegas Vic wrote on April 23, 2008 09:42 PM: There's an EASIER way to deal with "incumbent spending" than to impose monetary limits on donations. That way is to impose MANDATORY term limits of 6 years on EVERY government position. This goes for local, state and federal offices, including Congress. 6 years is MORE than enough time for any politico to "make their mark" if they're going to. If that's not enough time, then they had no business running for office.


    Steve wrote on April 23, 2008 07:11 PM: John F,

    IMHO, the problem with our electoral system isn't necessarily that it's too democratic; it's that a huge amount of people exercising their rights in it don't think before voting. They vote for someone strictly because they have a "D" or "R" by their name, because they are a certain race/nationality/religion/etc.


    fluffy wrote on April 23, 2008 03:36 PM: Any politician that's spent more than 12 years in "the beltway" needs to be hauled out and burned, sufficiently, until they are no longer a threat to our constitution.


    Herb wrote on April 23, 2008 02:56 PM: Willard says the right wing is trying to replace Democracy with Capitalism and it's destroying our country.

    I say the problem with Democracy is that it never gives the chance for pure Capitalism to thrive. Too many people vote for Socialistic politicians and programs. That's why we should limit who is allowed to vote. Anyone on a welfare program should forfit their right to vote. There should also be an IQ test. I would say only landowners should vote, but that would be a problem in this era because too many underwater housing debtors would vote themselves a bailout.


    warren clark wrote on April 23, 2008 01:24 PM: Campaign Finanace3!

    No problem just limit the total monies spent for any office to the annual salary.
    All additional monies by any source tax at 50% athe source of the exprending.


    John F wrote on April 23, 2008 12:38 PM: Steve,

    The problem with our electoral system is that it's too democratic?

    The inability to think clearly is a disease that cuts across all party lines. Surely you know this just from reading this blog every day. :-)

    Case in point: If the problem was just liberals, then how do you explain the sorry state of our country after the last eight years of Republican rule? Believe me, this is not to say that we'd be any better off had the Democrats been in power. I'm just pointing out that Republicans and Democrats are equally capable of being stupid.


    Steve wrote on April 23, 2008 09:19 AM: Willard Roker,

    You are 100% (or at least 99.99%) wrong. If the American voter were intelligent enough to vote for the "best" person instead of just pulling the lever for a "D" or and "R", then term limits wouldn't be needed. However, look at Billary winning states SIMPLY because she's a woman, white, her last name is Clinton, etc. She would be absolutely THE worst thing to happen to this country (including her husband and GWB), yet older, white women are voting for her in mass. The problem with our government is that there are entirely too many extreme left-wing liberals allowed to vote and they aren't capable of thinking before voting (or after voting for that matter).


    Willard Roker wrote on April 23, 2008 07:54 AM: Term limits do nothing but deny people the right to be represented by whom ever they want.

    The problem with our government is that the Right Wing is trying to replace Democracy with Capitalism and this is destroying our country.


    Daniel wrote on April 23, 2008 07:12 AM: 4 years and out, Change the retirement package to 0 and make them pay Social Security tax again along with all the other taxes that i get charged. As of now they do not pay social security tax and after a loss or retirement in congress they get paid for life there congressional pay and if he/she dies spouse keeps on collecting until death. Then to top it off Medical is top notch with out any co payment. I stand corrected co payment they do pay from us tax payers. Many have off shore accounts to prevent from paying taxes. All this given to them from all the old goons in this congress from 1985-today. Too sum it up its all about me not the voter. Vote them all out on there next election. They even vote for there own raises, why not let WE THE PEOPLE vote on that raise and S.S. and exempt taxes for these so called leaders. Lobbyist need long term congress so they may get them in there pocket over a long term a short term will kill many lobbyist and put them out of work.


    b wrote on April 23, 2008 06:00 AM: Untill we have term limits,, vote all encumbents out after one term, it will only get worse, with the pork earmarks available to sitting legislators, and their quest to protect each other