Have a question or issue in campaign law? Contact us and we'll try to answer you. Enter your e-mail below:
Learn more about...
Interested in a specific subject? Click here to browse our blog by subject area.
Blog Roll
AFJ Nonprofit Advocacy Blog
Beltway Blogroll
Campaign Legal Center blog
Cato Unbound
Common Cause Blog
Division of Labour
First Amendment Center
Going to the Mat
Instapundit.com
The Lonely Centrist
Michael Barone
More Soft Money Hard Law (Bob Bauer)
Political Activity Law
Public Citizen WatchdogBlog
RedState
Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog
Sabato's Crystal Ball
The Volokh Conspiracy
Votelaw
|
|
They said it
Published on March 27, 2008 03:45 PM
by Michael Schrimpf
File Under: "Clean" Elections, Contributions & Limits, Faulty Assumptions
A member of the campaign finance regulation community made a rather curious comment in a CQ article on the Millionaires' Amendment.
Alison Smith, co-chairman of Maine Citizens for Clean Elections, defended the Millionaires' Amendment by asserting, "I think the court will make preserving political speech the highest priority. You can’t make a straight-faced argument that scaling back money in political campaigns enhances free speech.”
Perhaps she will soon apply the same logic to her position on spending limits for government-financed elections and also oppose spending limits on free speech grounds.
