Why I pick on the FEC
By krempasky Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Chris Nolan, one of my favorite lefties, seems to delight in using me (specifically my involvement in a left/right coalition) as a club to smack Markos around.
I've not a lot of interest in jumping in the middle of that fight, but suffice to say she's got some...harsh words for Markos.
That said, a few words are in order. Chris lambastes Markos for opposing restrictions on political activity on the internet, claiming that 1) it's about Markos' personal benefit and 2) all good progressives ought to support campaign finance regulations. I'll leave it to progressives to fight about what good progressives actually believe (or ought to, anyway), but in the process she takes a stab at characterizing my views.
You've been following the man you should see as your true political opponent - Mike Krempasky and the guys at RedState - from the get-go and you're either too lazy or too stupid to see the real problem and agenda here. You're being played, oh Great One. Like a cheap accordion....
The idea of getting money out of politics is one that used to be endorsed by Democrats and reformer, folks who really were progressive, not just mouthing the words to some 1970s Golden Oldie barely remembered from their first 8th Grade co-ed dance. Why? Because those reformer understood that big money - corporate money, union money, rich people's money - didn't always go to their side or the aisle. And regardless of where it goes, it can be corrupting. They understood that money will never leave politics; that's why it has to be watched very, very carefully, as publicly as possible, as openly as possible.
Mike Krempasky does not believe this. And if you think for a minute that Krempasky isn't trying to use this recent round of FEC hearings and comments to gut the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which brought many of them into being, you are dreaming.
Chris and I have very different views on campaign finance regulations/reform/restrictions. But perhaps it's worthwhile to speak very clearly: I tend to think that the electorate - the citizenry is best served by competitive elections - not the inevitable incumbent protection that breeds an out-of-touch political establishment. And make no mistake - that's what these laws do. It's like allowing Microsoft to write our anti-trust laws. I want activists to be able to throw the bums out - on the left or right - or at least make a credible threat to do so.
I think that ideas matter. Money in the coffers of challengers is worth many times that of the incumbent's - and just about any idea, cause, or candidate with a shread of legitimacy can find enough money in this country to be competitive. Fer crying out loud - Lyndon LaRouche probably has a pretty good direct mail housefile.
I believe ideas spoken by small people matter. I believe that the so-called damage that big money can do in politics is more than balanced by the force of lots of tiny voices. And the internet is the best place for those tiny voices to band together and form (to borrow Dr. Schumpeter's phrase) a "gale of creative destruction."
Does anyone really think that I'm worried in any significant way that someone who can give 100K to a candidate is going to be overburdened by regulations? That this is some shadow campaign to help Richard Scaife and George Soros start buying elections at wholesale prices? Hooey. They hire lawyers, they distribute their gifts, they band together in giving clubs with their wealthy friends - they'll find a way.
As far as the work Markos and I have done fighting potential regulations of political activity on the internet - take whatever shot you like at him, but it's pretty clear that putting aside our individual principles - we both believe that when you put politics in the hands of small speakers - that our respective sides will be advantaged.
And I say - outstanding. Let's let everybody into the show, let's encourage everyone to participate. And yes, I happen to think that in the long term, the more access that Americans have to the views I happen to hold - the more successful conservatives and Republicans will be on election day. But Markos surely believes the same thing about progressives.
What's the problem again? Let's have at it.
p.s. As I've said before - if you want to know my views on elections and campaign regulations - pick up a copy of Jim Miller's Monopoly Politics. Or just read a lot of Bob Bauer.
[deleted], yeah.
This is nothing more than a scheme to protect the next Dan Rather/Jayson Blair.
I consider Kos' stand on this to be quite principled. If he was just a partisan weenie, like Whatsername, he would see the obvious advantage to his side in having draconian campaign finance laws combined with a media exemption.
As far as I'm concerned, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and certainly CBS News, should have to register as 527's. As institutions, they are all partisan political activists engaging in public advocacy. Some Democrat probably wants to add Fox News to that list, and I'll happily do it as long as we add CNN as well.
But if those outfits are going to get an exemption, then I want one, too. The notion that they are any less partisan than I am is ludicrous.