Bill violates 1988 law that bans tax subsidies for politicians Alexandria, VA – The Center for Competitive Politics (CCP) sent a letter to California Governor Jerry Brown today urging him to veto California Senate Bill 1107, which permits the State of California and its localities to subsidize candidate campaigns with Californians’ tax dollars. This action directly violates the Political […]
The measure also calls for an “ethics commission” to examine matters of ethics in government. While this sounds good in theory, the members will be unelected and thus unaccountable to the people, and will likely be comprised of members who are just as partisan as they would be if they came to hold those positions through other means.
IM 22 would also place additional requirements on political speech that would likely have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.
Rhoden invited attendees to read an analysis on the measure done by the Center for Competitive Politics.
The Wall Street Journal editor explained that there is a connection between spending money and getting your message out, and she argued that “the Left loves to regulate money in politics, because that’s a way of regulating their opponents.” If free speech cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission are overturned, “the government can decide who can spend money in elections, which is the same as saying who can speak in elections.”
“When you hear ‘campaign finance reform’ or ‘dark money,’ [the Left] is trying to silence you,” declared Matt Nese, director of external relations at the Center for Competitive Politics. He defended each American’s right to donate to political causes, explaining that giving money is another way of speaking out for what you believe in.
Paul H. Jossey
Polls show most people view political spending negatively, as an ill-defined corruption. Candidates notice. Many presidential candidates this year heaped scorn upon “big money,” Super PACs, “dark money,” and so on.
That politicians would embrace popular, feel-good platitudes in an attempt to win support is unremarkable. More interesting is how these former candidates who want more speech limits behaved when the pressure to win conflicts with their rhetoric…
Dan Malloy became the first Connecticut gubernatorial candidate to take public campaign funds. His $6.5 million taxpayer haul included a sworn promise to forgo private contributions over $100. But when reformer bona fides collided with a close reelection, rules became optional. State Democrats helped their vulnerable candidate spending over $300,000 on mailers using prohibited cash.
The state’s sanction against the legislative candidates was for mentioning Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy, a Democrat, by name in mailings that referenced “Malloy’s bad policies” and “Malloy’s tax hike” for their own races in 2014, when Malloy was also on the ballot. The lawmakers used similar reference in campaign literature this year and in 2012, but face no sanction because Malloy appeared on the 2014 ballot….
“What Connecticut is trying to do is both ridiculous and likely unconstitutional,” Keating told The Daily Signal in an email.
Still, Keating added that politicizing a program was likely inevitable once the state has the purse strings to campaign funding.
“A government that funds speech will seek to control that speech,” Keating said. “Bureaucrats who control the funding will try to penalize candidates for trivial violations.”