The NY Times on the “Millionaires’ Amendment” case:
On Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear a legal challenge to the so-called millionaires’ amendment. It should uphold Congress’s modest effort to help candidates who rely on outside contributions to get their messages out to the voters.
In other words, most candidates for public office – since “candidates who rely on outside contributions to get their messages out to the voters” is almost all of them. Would that the Court, and the Times (and Senators McCain and Obama, for that matter) would devote more energy to freeing such candidates to get their messages to the voters, and let the voters decide.
I’m a long time reader of this blog and a registered Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.
Sir, I have to admit how appalled I’ve been with how you take every single opportunity to single out Obama for criticism of any and all nature. It’s quite obvious you are scared to have him become the nominee.
This post? Well, it begs one simple question – and it’s asked so us readers can properly place into context all your posts:
How much do *you* make annually? Please, I’m just wanting to shed some light on the writer’s words….
Funny, this post was a shot at the Times, although I threw in the lines about McCain and Obama because they are also big boosters of campaign finance regulation. I thought the Times quote was funny in exactly the same way as Obama’s line, because it illustrates the extent to which supporters of McCain-Feingold-style regulation have to bend themselves into rhetorical pretzels when they see campaign speech they *do* want to see proceed without restriction. You will note that the ubiquitous concerns about corruption go unmentioned in this editorial.
I don’t have the money to self-finance a campaign for public office, if that’s what you are asking.