Today, It's McCain

It seems that McCain and Obama take turns irritating me. Today, I am irritated with John McCain and his campaign. Can you believe this presumptuous crap?

Dear John- You don't have my support. You have a commitment against you, however. Kindly fade into obscurity.

I've gotten some fairly presumptuous stuff from Obama before, back in April '07 in fact, and it irked me then. I was the Libertarian Party's candidate for Secretary of State in '06, for crying out loud. I'm a Libertarian partisan! It's not too hard to look up, and it suggested to me that Obama would make the kind of president that wouldn't be too interested in details or facts, just getting the win. I really don't like that.

Well, I like this less. This one came with a letter, addressed to me, not to 'occupant' but to me by name, and identified me as a 'grassroots leader'. It targeted me as one with 'conservative principles'- which is correct, insofar as 'conservative' relative to change means, with lineage to Thomas Jefferson. So, the McCain campaign must have looked me up enough to know that I kind of have some grassroots political involvement.

.

McCain is the co-author of McCain-Feingold, the badly misnamed campaign finance 'reform' law. I don't know the full scope of McCain-Feingold, but I do know this: It's illegal to troll campaign finance reports for potential donors. I'm not saying that's what the McCain campaign is doing when it lands a targeted beg package like this in the lap of a guy like me, but I wouldn't rule it out either.

.

I really don't like that in a president, either.

.

The letter reads, "I know that before I ask for your support, I must earn your respect."

The McCain 'honor' stuff has worn more than thin. It's a load of bunk. If you want my respect, call for the repeal of McCain-Feingold, reverse your Iraq policy, apologize for your FISA vote, up the call for budget cuts from measly earmarks to something substantial like 5% across-the-board, and maybe just fold your campaign. that would be a start towards earning my respect.

Dirty Money Non-Controversy

I'll take the recent "controversy" over Ron Paul keeping a $500 campaign contribution from a racist as a sign of his growing relevance. If you're irrelevant, they don't inspect the sources of your receipts, after all.

I like Paul's response- especially his decimation of Faux News' Neil Cavuto.

Neil Cavuto: There are reports, sir, that your campaign has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist in West Palm Beach. And your campaign had indicated you have no intention to return it. What are you going to do with that?

Ron Paul: It is probably already spent. Why give it back to him and use it for bad purposes? And I don't even know his name. I never heard of it. You know, when you get 57,000 donations a day, are we supposed to screen them and find out their beliefs? He sent the money for my beliefs. And if he promoting my viewpoints and my attitudes, why give it back to him if he has bad viewpoints?

And I don't endorse anything that he endorses or what anybody endorses. They come to me to endorse freedom and the Constitution and limited government. So, I see no purpose for me to start screening everybody that sends me money. I mean, it is impossible to do it. It is a ridiculous idea that I am supposed to screen these people.

If you think Paul is off-base here, consider this comment from a Reason Hit & Run reader:

The same people who criticize Dr. Paul for accepting donations from a racist hate group probably don't have a problem with the State seizing assets from drug dealers and using that tainted money for the children rather than incinerating it with the drugs.

Paul's using the money to promote liberty. I'm a-ok with that. Beyond that, I highly doubt anyone reading this considers the relative moral standing of all the people behind their paychecks. In the odd chance you do, is it the case that you shred the check if it turns out the boss is a racist? Or if a shareholder in the company beats his wife? Right. Didn't think so. Glass houses and rocks, folks.

Oprah and Campaign Finance "Reform"

(Fishers, IN)- If I want to support Ron Paul with a check in the amount of $5,000, I am prohibited from doing so by law. $2,300 is the annual limit I can give. You can see this as the top amount on Paul's donation page, or on any other candidate's. For instance, here's the link to Barack Obama's, with the same top figure.

Oprah Winfrey has acknowledged that her check is pretty useless, compared with her endorsement and stumping for Barack Obama. From the NY Times Politics Blog:

She said she has not written a check to Mr. Obama’s campaign.

“Well the truth of the matter is, whether I contribute or not contribute, you are limited to how much you contribute, so my money isn’t going to make any difference to him,” Ms. Winfrey said. “I think that my value to him, my support of him, is probably worth more than any check.”

Yep. Probably. We'll call that the understatement of the year.

The Cato Institute's Daily Podcast for Dec. 11 poses the interesting question: In light of the "campaign finance reform" laws, which are ostensibly aimed towards making contributions more fair and level, should appearances by celebrities also be banned because such appearances skirt the spirit of the law? Link to the Cato Daily Podcast archives.

I believe the law is garbage. Contributions should not be limited, because they amount to political speech- just as sure as an appearance and endorsement by Oprah is also political speech, no matter how much value anyone could place on her appearances.

All this shows is that the law was really intended to keep influence in the usual hands, and keep those candidates who cannot yet draw on value outside the grassroots at bay.

Radley Balko on Campaign Finance Reform

Balko says: understandable motives, wrong solution. He's got it right. I learned firsthand that I could out-work my competitors by a mile and still not make a dent in the numbers without about a half million to spend.

Good quotes:

I tend to agree with many of the editorial boards and campaign reformers troubled by the escalation in the money we spend on federal elections. Unfortunately, campaign finance reformers (and lobbying reformers) seem to be troubled for all the wrong reasons.

The problem with increasing amounts of money spent on lobbying and politics isn't that Americans are spending more and more money to buy some influence in Washington; the problem is that we're giving Washington more and more influence to sell.

Nice as it may be to think otherwise, individuals, advocacy groups and corporations that give to political campaigns don't do so out of patriotism or civic pride. They donate because they hope to get something in return. It's not a gift, it's an investment.

Amen! Let's give Washington (and Indianapolis, etc.) less to sell. Also,

Here's a failsafe prediction for Election 2008: The people who complain the loudest about corruption among the politically powerful will be the same people who want to give more power to politicians.

Link to full article.