|
actually, let me clarify that, because I was being flip and therefore maybe not clear.
I don't want to restrict anyone, of any kind, from using whatever legal tools are available to get their message out. What I object to is the notion that we should not regulate things that favor Democrats, but should regulate things that non-Democrats can use to break the hegemony of Democratic machines.
Money is jsut a tool. People of any persusasion can use it to get their message out and make people aware of them and what they stand for. That's all money can do. It can't force people to vote for the spender. But it can level the playing field against a candidate with built-in institutional advantages, such as Jerry Brown -- he is son of a governor, former governor, former mayor, lots of political chits, darling of the public employee unions who are choking the state economy. To break through against someone like that, yes, the opponent has to spend a lot of money. I agree with you, Will, that without the spending she wouldn't be on the radar screen, but I disagree with your conclusion -- I think having money to be an equalizer is a good thing. I see no reason why a hack like Jerry Brown should be insulated from challenge by relying on his non-monetary, hidden, back-room advantages, including heaven only knows what sorts of backroom deals and winking understandings.
To my thinking, if we are going to regulate ONE tool, we should regulate EVERY tool. But it just can't be that the regulations are focused only on techniques that people other than Democrats use. Most campaign finance reform is aimed pretty much at entrenching the Democratic Party.
And that's why I think most campaign regulation should be eliminated. That's the only way to level the playing field completely fairly, and not exclude any voices.
|