OC Campaign Finance: We Need More Freedom, Not More "Reform"

In this world, nothing is certain but but death, taxes -- and Shirley Grindle pushing yet more campaign "reforms."

Grindle promises to gather signatures for yet another campaign finance initiative on the county ballot next year, if the Board of Supervisors don't heed her and vote to put it on themselves. Her target: stop legislators from transferring state campaign money into a supervisor campaign account.

"They're able to transfer over hundreds of thousands on Day 1," she said. "It puts the local candidate at a tremendous disadvantage. It's totally, grossly unfair."

Does it ever occur to Shirley it his her TIN CUP contribution limits that put the local candidate at a disadvantage? If it does, it is a truth she's not prepared to face, because her fail-safe response is to advocate even more stringent restrictions on our political free speech.

And so the campaign finance merry-go-round continues to spin: since we've given so much power to government, interests groups will always seek ways to influence government decisions. A way will always be found around the latest "reform," and the reformers will concoct ever more arcane "reforms" to fix their earlier "reforms."

Grindle also wants the Board of Supervisors to  create an "ethics commission" that will essentially be the permanent bureaucratic personification of Shirley Grindle. Ronald Reagan once famously said, "A government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" -- so this is Grindle bid for immortality.

Contribution limits do not work. They don't make campaigns "cleaner." They don't reduce the influence of special interests or make them uninterested in influencing government policy.

They do force candidates to spend more time raising money than they would otherwise have to. They do put challengers at a tremendous disadvantage vis-a-vis incumbents (unless the challenger is a self-funder). They do give unelected government bureaucrats more and more power over how and when citizens exercise their free speech during elections.

As fitness flash-in-the-pan Susan Powter would say: Stop the insanity! If the Board of Supervisors has any sense, they'll vote "No" on Grindle's latest reform-of-a-reform-of-a-reform-of-a-reform and instead simplify county campaign finance laws to abolish contribution limits and require full, immediate Internet disclosure of contributions. The media, the blogosphere and voters can see for themselves who's giving to whom and draw their own conclusions, and the candidates can clobber each other over who is funding their respective campaigns.

That is the kind of reform that is respectful of liberty, free speech and our heritage as a free Republic.

Comments

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

Forgive me if I ignore advice on campaign finance propriety from a Republican.

We don't need campaign finance reform, we need candidate reform.

Reagan also said "thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican" - possibly the most revolting and inappropriate statement ever to define modern politics.

[JozefColomy]

Amen, Jubal.

Also, Alex, I know you are not referencing the Jack Abramoff affair with your comment, because I'm sure that you're aware that both John Kerry and Harry Reid recieved approximately $100,000 each from him. Also, let's not forget good old William Jefferson. Oh, wait, nevermind, we're going to focus on Tom "Charges dropped" Delay instead. I forgot.

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

Mmmm...words in my mouth. Tasty!

[Ignore that man from the Weekly]

Alex is just showing his preference for cheekiness over intelligent commentary.

[JozefColomy]

Likewise. I was merely confirming that that was not, in fact, what you were referring to with your choice of words and the operative "Republican".

If you wanted to clarify the sentence "Excuse me if I ignore advice on campaign finance propriety from a Republican," you are more than welcome.

[Bruce Matthias]

Spot on, Jubal. Politically the BOS will need to have a counter-proposal in order to successfully oppose Grindle's flawed idea. In my opinion they could credibly put forth the idea that limits should be eliminated (or raised substantially) and immediate (six hours) and full disclosure of all contributions would be required via a web site. They would also need strong and quick penalties for those that violated the new reporting requirements, even if it was a victorious candidate.

It is my beleif that you cannot counter something with nothing; this is my something. Just a thought.

[rebecca]

The charges against DeLay have been dropped, Jozef? Where? In your head? He's still charged with money laundering.

And Harry Reid never took a dime from Abramoff, Jubal. He took contributions from some fo the tribes Abramoff represented, which had already been contributing to him before Abramoff got his hooks into them.

That will be all.

Jozef-
I didn't think Alex's comment on "campaign finance propriety" was a reference to Abramoff, but thanks for reminding us all of that one.
Smart move, kid.

[Alex Brant-Zawadzki]

Jozef:

My perception is that Republicans are more concerned with appearance than substance. Reagan's 11th Commandment makes that painfully clear to me. Why not speak ill of a Republican if they deserve it? Or a Democrat?
And I wasn't actually thinking of Jackie Abramoff, I was thinking of people like Randy Cunningham, Kenny Calvert, Gary Miller, Ricky Pombo, Tommy DeLay, and especially Teddy Stevens - I'd like him to take a long walk off a short bridge to nowhere.

[JozefColomy]

Oh, I'm sorry, he's charged with something completely unrelated? Hmm, you mean like Scooter Libby, who was not indicted for anything actually related to the alleged "leak" of Valerie Plame's name? It's so funny how the Dems tactics for political gain include getting some grand jury together to hear a bogus story of something that a Republican "did" and then it appears in the news as "[Fill name in here] charged with [fill-in bogus "crime"]!"

Senator Reid's indiscretions were just as bad as any Republican's, or other Democrats. We're splitting hairs by saying that he only took money from the people represented by Abramoff because that was the case with many the the Republicans who are scrutinized. He still voted like how Abramoff wanted him to. And I still stand by the fact that Senator Kerry recieved approximately $100,000 from Abramoff's lobby. My point was, do not make scandal in Washington, D.C. a partisan issue. I'm not saying that the Democrats are corrupt or whatever, but merely that this ad-hominem talk of "corruption" needs to stop from the Democrats.

And on a small side note, give Ted Stevens, also known as Senator Older-than-time, a break. His little "bridge to nowhere" that you all tout was nowhere near as bad as people made it sound. Granted, I do not think such a thing warrants federal funding, but remember that the bridge would've linked a a rather large plot of developable land to an area with a city of 8,000 and an international airport. Basically there were ulterior purposes for the bridge other than for the residents of Gravina Island to drive instead of taking the ferry.

Oh, and anon at 1:06 pm, I like your psued--oh wait, you don't have one. Feel free to come have a big-boy debate/discussion and to bring back your tough talk to me when you can think up a big-boy name for yourself. Got it, son?

Now, back to the topic at hand: Campaign finance in Orange County. Perhaps the real answer to this is not to get rid of TIN CUP, but to even further and repeal the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002? I know that it has been shown that lobbyists don't donate a lot of money to those who don't share their opinion already, so I strongly feel that it is hard for a member of Congress to be "bought". For example, do you think that an NRA check to Nancy Pelosi is going to make her like guns and to go so far as to vote for them? I think not. Likewise, if the NAACP were to donate to Trent Lott...wait, bad example. If NARAL were to donate to Senator Saxby Chambliss, he's not going to all of a sudden start liking abortions. The way I see it, all putting restrictions on campaign contributions/finance does is kill freedom of speech. How sad is it that we live in a society that allows burning the flag of our nation because of "freedom of speech", yet at the same time doesn't allow people to spend their own money how they want to by donating a lot to a candidate? Very sad, in my opinion.

[debbie Oneill]

Campaign reform is a MUST!

When local candidates, even incumbant Mayors like Curt Pringle, can’t get campaign donations from LOCAL Business’s or Residents, they turn to Special Interests.

Why should ANYONE spend 500,000 dollars on a bid to be mayor when it pays less than 25,000 per year for a part time job?

While it’s public record how much a person spends on their campaign, no average citizen knows how to look at the numbers! Check it out and decide for yourself!

[rebecca]

Hate to beat your dead horse, Jozef, but "money laundering" isn't something "completely unrelated" to the charges against DeLay. It IS the charge--no matter how long you write to hide the fact that your post says nothing. I have no idea what you're trying to say with your Plame point. If you watched Fitzgerald's press conference, he said he couldn't charge Libby with anything else because Libby's perjury had effectively thrown sand in the ref's face so they didn't KNOW what the facts were . . . beyond the multiple perjurings, of course. I seem to remember you all having a bit of a problem with Bill Clinton about that. It wasn't hte BJ's--it was the perjury!!!!
DeLay? They charged him with money laundering, which of course is ABSOLUTELY related to his money laundering. I'm pretty sure there's a Latin phrase for that.
See, Texas only has one campaign finance law: corporations may not give to Texas candidates. So DeLay solicited corporate contributions, had them write out the checks to the RNC, adn then had the RNC write out checks in the exact amounts to his candidates. You may not think that's a big deal, but the Texas Grand Jury did. Hence the money-laundering charges. Claro?

[Jo(e) Blow]

Didn't know that folks who remain anonymous were prohibited from raising questions on the blog, JC.
You might want to have "Jubal" inform "Roscoe," "Dutch," "El Pistolero," etc., etc.
YOU are the one who brought up Abramoff and DeLay. Nobody else.
Feeling a bit defensive?
As for asking me to be a "big boy" (like you, I'm assuming), how do you know I'm a boy at all?

[JozefColomy]

Now Rebecca, I think that the impeachment of President Clinton was as ridiculous as anyone else does, and that's not similar to what I am saying.

My point, which has been so distorted by now by you and others, was that it was since this whole Abramoff affair that, all of a sudden, the Republicans are "corrupt". My case in point was how everyone beats down on Tom Delay (someone whom I do not hold in high regard, regardless) and the rest of the Republicans for "conspiring" (operative word there) to launder/embezzle/illegally donate/etc. money. What is the most funny, though, is that charges of conspiracy were the ones that never stuck. Now Tom Delay is being implicated for his own personal impropriety, but not that of some "grand Republican corruption machine".

And please give me a break with the whole "donate to the RNC, but really going to Delay" stuff. It's called soft-money and it's what PACs are doing on a daily basis to the tune of millions of dollars. Don't think for a minute that none of the checks that go through the DNC have memos saying "For [Johnny Q. Politican]". It goes both ways.

The whole point, which I doubt is above you, but seems to be lost nonetheless, with the Scooter Libby reference was that you can say all day that "[X] was charged with [Y]! Culture of corruption!!!1" but that does not make them guilty of something else. Paris Hilton was arrested on DUI charges a couple of days ago, does that make her a murderer? Of course not. Nor does being charged with "Obstruction of justice" make Scooter Libby guilty of "Treason".

And Joe Blow (reallly clever name, by the way), I never insinuated anything near anonymous-folk not being allowed to pose questions. What I abhor is anonymous people who try and e-talk down to me or anyone else, such as yourself. Also, I'm sorry if you are, in fact, a female...the funny thing about the internet is that there are no faces on these posts.

[Andy Favor]

I agree with Jubal on this one. What we need is more freedom coupled with a return to the concept of limited government. As a candidate I would like to see the limit raised before you have to form a campaign committee. Anyone should be able to raise at least $100,000 before any filing is required in my humble opinion.

On the topic of illegal campaign finance violations, does anyone remember that story "Bang for the Bucks" that the Register ran a few years back? It was about the mob going after Nixon's illegal campaign contributions from Dairy farmers. That was one of the best stories ever in that paper. They got the wrong bank, but the things the robbers did get still resulted in Laguna Niguel (now Dana Point) as being home to the nation's largest bank robbery ever.