A rebuttal to the Club for Growth’s stance on Constituents Only Campaign Financing

Earlier today Rob asked the question: Should We Restrict Contributions Constituents Only?

The Club for Growth then countered with “Still a Bad Idea”

Let me take this opprotunity to address The Club’s arguments.

And incumbents don’t have a fundraising advantage? Oh c’mon! Get serious.

Does The Club support Public Financing of campaigns? I don’t think so, but it would go a long way towards fixing this issue.

If the Washington PACs can’t contribute, they will get their cronies in state to do so.

In a state like North Dakota? If they don’t already do this, I doubt they will start even with new limitations.

Get real. Incumbents WILL win if little money is spent by the challenger. They have a huge name ID advantage. Challengers need to raise a threshold amount to get viable.

This is true, but it’s not a system I would ever defend. The Club for Work has done great work defeating RINO incumbants, wouldn’t it be great if they didn’t have to work so hard?

If the Washington PACs can’t contribute, they will get their cronies in state to do so.

Wouldn’t it be great if the Club for Growth had a local chapter in North Dakota? I think so. I’ll even start up the office! (Closed caption to Club for Growth – check out some Growth Ratings for North Dakota legislators at http://www.nodakchange.com.)

No one will come in with independent speech if the candidate isn’t some kind of contender. So, yes, crush the egg and there will be no candidates who will be hatched. Or no one anyone would want to put any money into speaking out for.

Thats the point! Out-of-state interests should not be interfering with North Dakotan politics. Grassroots should mean something, under the current system it does not.

Oh yes, and did you forget that incumbent congressmen can easily spend $500,000 per election cycle from us taxpayers to pay for their congressional mass mailing privileges, email blasting, robocalls and yes even radio ads. Let me tell you, that stuff is little more than propaganda.

Let’s get rid of the “Franking” as well!

And no one has addressed the problem of breaking a corrupt political machine. I’ve seen the effects on people first hand. People will not donate in-state against the machine.

If you cut off a half the machine’s funding as well, it’d be worth it. People aren’t contributing the way it is Matt Mechtel and Dwight Grotberg have recieved less than $50,000, that won’t get you anywhere against multi-million dollar cash cows.

So if you are comfortable with machine-style politics, then by all means support this bad idea. The rest of us prefer freedom.

The current system protects incumbants, plain and simple.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: