Is It Hypocritical To Believe In Campaign Finance Reform...

[THUNDER HANDS]

and also opt out of Public Financing.

Because it would seem that the logical arguments to support doing both seem to conflict with eachother.

On one hand, you have those who say that money isn't speech, and shouldn't be protected under the first ammendment.

And on the other you have those who say that Bush will spend multiple times the amount of money a Democrat could raise and his money will buy ads that will drown out the democrat.

ie - Bush's money = speech so I have to have as much money as I can so I can speak to the people as much as my opponent.

So which is correct?

Does money used in political campaigns equal speech or doesn't it?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Cases which appear immediately hypocritical

are not because they are necessary.


For instance, in a beautiful world I would not have to own a gun, and therefore I believe in complete gun control. But this world is very ugly, and therefore I must own a gun, no matter how much I hate them.


Necessity overwrites hypocrisy.

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. you could always

own a knife. Of a long pointed stick. :)

[sweetheart]

4. knives and guns

Indiana jones has a rather famous scene with a man brandishing some nasty swords... bang bang.

As handguns are illegal in britain, i don't want any explosive weapons... i only have knives and my bow and arrows. I can't imagine threatening someone with a bow and arrow. It'd be rather intense, as the draw weight would make my arm shake after a while and i'd want the scene to be over before i had to let the bow down.

Safety in america these days is a 10 guage shotgun. Methinks it the best home defense weapon, as handguns are too easily misshot in the instant they are needed to hit... and the shotgun's spray misses less and has a bit of stopping power.

Knives are lovely for cutting vegetables, but not much else.

[rucky]

13. I use a poo stick...

for home defense. Nobody f^&*s with me & my poo stick.

[forgethell]

8. That's very true,

but if YOU have to have a gun, in this imperfect world, so does the next guy, in his mind to protect against you. My own belief is that we should not prescribe for others what we are first not willing to do, or acrifice, ourlseves. For this reason, I don't even dream of a world withoug guns. Maybe someday.

And, yes, it is hypocritical.

[dofus]

10. The world is very ugly,

but that does not mean you must own a gun. I hate guns. I think the world is ugly. I don't own one. You choose to own one, which is absolutely your right in this country. But there's no "must own a gun" about it.

As for campaign financing, if one guy isn't going to follow the rules and will have hundreds of millions of dollars to spend just when the guy who follows the rules will be out of money, then maybe levelling the playing field makes more sense. Which is exactly what Dean is trying to do by opting out of campaign finance limits.

[sweetheart]

3. free speech is not mass media

The campaign finance should be public ONLY, and all television and radio should be blacked out for political advertising 2 months before elections (september & october).

The framers did not even conceive of radio and television in the first amendment. You are free to go speak on a box at the park, or to write an article in the newspaper, but to be able to touch 50 million viewers with political advertizing is a perversion of the first amendment.

Campaign finance reform... equal footing for all players... No end arounds.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Let's say in basketball, you support a rule change

Let's say in basketball, you support a rule change to make slam-dunks only count for 1 point, to discourage slam-dunks, which weren't always a big part of the game.

In doesn't mean that in the meanwhile, you want your teams slam-dunks to only count for 1 point while the opposing team's count for 2.

Bush opted out of the public financing system first. Dean has to, to compete.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

6. No because if your opponent already opted out, that's not reform either.

It is hypocritical however, to promise to take public financing, saying that it is because you believe in it as a principle, and then later opt out when you discover you are raising more money than you anticipated. That would be hypocritical. Or let's say you'd also, for instance, announced you would attack any Democrat that opted out, and now you were opting out. That would be hypocritical, definitely.

[Eloriel]

7. Too many different issues in your question

1. I think the Supreme Court was nuts when it equated money with speech. Blech. That means (obviously), those who have more money have more speech: that's anti-democratic, by definition.

2. Believing in Campaign Finance Reform shouldn't mean you shoot off your foot supporting it. While I'm NOT a "win at any cost" type person, it would be just foolish, not to mention self-destructive, to stick to spending limits imposed decades ago which would nearly guarantee your defeat, given your opponent's massive (and growing) warchest.

3. The whole point of Campaign Finance Reform is to get big money donors representing "special interests" out of the picture. The concept is very pro-democracy. The first candidate to have opted out for purely practical reasons given George Bush's money, has more than achieved getting big money donors out of the picture AND enhancing participation in our democratic process. That was what enabled him to even consider eschewing matching funds.

4. "Is it hypocritcal to believe in CFR and opt out of Public Financing?" NOT WHEN YOU OPT OUT BECAUSE YOU MUST AND YOUR CAMPAIGN IS PUBLICLY FINANCED DIRECTLY ANYWAY, far surpassing even the original intent of CFR. (And no offense, but it really annoys me to have to point out the fucking obvious.)

Eloriel

[Silverhair]

9. Even in 1787 money equaled speech.

If you wanted to do more than stand on a soapbox and holler, you had to have money to do it with. You had to print up handbills and circulate them, which meant paying printers and possibly hiring people to put them us in public places.

In 1517 Martin Luther had only a few copies, at most of his now famous 95 Thesis. Yet in two weeks all of Germany was aflame over them. It was money that copied, printed, and spread them.

The technology has since changed markedly, but money has always equaled speech, and still does. Freedom of speech means that the gov't does not stop you. It does not give you a guarantee of a gov't supplied amplifier. You have to get that for yourself.

[jpgray]

11. CFR was a half-measure that solved nothing and pleased no one (nt)

[kodi]

12. no, but its futile to be the one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest

.

[mot78]

14. No

how is it campaign finance reform when it only benefits *