Huckabee Discovers Corrupting Effect of Campaign Finance Laws
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says the reason less-well-financed candidates can't compete is because the requirements for disclosure aren't tight enough, yet no limits on contributions should be made. You're half right, Mike. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
An article posted online by the Pine Bluff Commercial quotes former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee as saying, "I tend to think what we really need is if you're going to say that someone who has unlimited wealth who can write a check for anything, then turn everybody loose and say no limits, but full disclosure on everything, down to the penny and make it instantaneous disclosure," he said. "Not three months away. Make it 24-hour disclosure."
It's nice to see a major party, big government politician complain about the campaign finance laws, because his party played such a major role in their creation in the first place. Welcome to the nightmare that third parties have been living with for years, Mike! But as glad as I am to see that you're calling for removal of restrictions on how much money people can donate to a campaign, I'm afraid you got the other half wrong.
There has been no real benefit from the requirement of disclosing where campaign money comes from. It hasn't made our politicians less corrupt. It hasn't reduced the amount of input that big contributors have to the political process. It has contributed strongly to big government. The evidence suggests that the campaign finance laws have made the system more corrupt than ever. As Huckabee noted, only the wealthy can now afford to run for office at the Federal level. That leaves roughly 95% of the population with no hope of ever being able to run an effective campaign, simply because they don't have uber-bucks in their own bank account.
Still, Huckabee's call to eliminate campagn contribution limits from individuals is a step in the right direction, and I wish all other candidates in the major parties who get screwed by current finance laws would similarly speak up.
What was even better was when, "He chastised the media for perpetuating the idea that there are only three candidates in the race." So Mike has also finally realized that lesser known candidates are unjustly excluded from media coverage! I'm sure that will be a great comfort to people like 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik, who could hardly get a notice from the major media in that election. Unfortunately, it's almost a sure thing that Huckabee doesn't want to extend his rhetoric to third parties. He only wants major party candidates to get the exposure.
Is it any wonder, then, that libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul of Texas find themselves forced to participate within a major party like the Republican Party rather than third parties like the Libertarian Party? Of course not. It's very interesting that Dr. Paul raised over $5 million in the third quarter of this year, despite all the same barriers and restrictions that Huckabee has to face, yet Huckabee hasn't congratulated Dr. Paul on his success at overcoming the huge barriers in the system. The biggest story of the campaign continues to be Dr. Paul's unexpectedly strong fundraising ability. According to Paul's up-to-the-minute website, his campaign currently has raised nearly $1.25 million so far for the fourth quarter, and we're only two and a half weeks into it. If that rate of contribution continues, he'll collect over $6 million for the fourth quarter, and that will make him a very serious candidate indeed. The only question that remains is how well he'll be able to translate that financial support into support at the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 20
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'd like to point out that, I believe, the total listed on Ron Paul's website is for internet donations only. What this means is that his total will be approximately 50% higher than what that number says. I think it's quite possible he'll be near $10 million for the 4th quarter, which is serious money indeed.
I expect Ron Paul to raise at least $10 million this quarter, for three reasons; more people will know about him now through TV and radio, he has more than doubled his take the past two quarters, and his contributions online have increased dramatically as the quarters have progressed.
I also expect Huckabee, Hunter, and Tancredo to drop out if they do not come in 1st or 2nd in Iowa.
It seems clear that the online tracker of Ron Paul's donations updates online donations quickly, but it would behoove them, if they are not already doing this, to update the other donations as they can, say at the end of every week from prior weeks take, just so it doesn't show a goal not being met when in reality is might be met. I don't expect people to donate more at the beginning of a month than at the end but we're missing the October mark right now if you extrapolate the daily take. I'd like to see a significant uptick. Hope is helped by evidence.
Posted By: Kevin Houston
Date: 2007-10-19 09:44:09
Dr. Paul isn't a (L)ibertarian. He's a Republican. While his platform would land in the libertarian quadrant of the NC, he holds to (at least) two positions which are anathema to the LP.
The first being pro-life, even at the point where the baby in question is not capable of survival outside the womb, and is therefore dependent upon charity of the mother. Dr. Paul would see no problem with a state forcing that mother to provide such life-charity.
The second being immigration, where Dr. Paul sees no problem with the state (and federal) government restricting the ability of peaceful people to travel where they wish (so long as they do no harm to others.) and he seems to support the notion that the government can and should enforce a monopoly on trading labor for value, restricting such right to "citizens" only.
These exceptions aside, Dr. Paul is generally (l)ibertarian, and represents a vast improvement over every other candidate running, as to be worth supporting (even for a die-hard (L)ibertarian, like me.)
In fact, because he is a Republican, and has a 10,000-fold greater chance of winning the general election, I am supporting him to a much greater degree than I would George Phillies or even the esteemed Christine Smith.
I will be happy to support a Libertarian against Ron Paul's relection in the 2012 campaign, but for now, he is the best chance for liberty this cycle.
Pretty cool what one can do with the data when it is publicly available. The current projection is almost $6.5M for online donations only... assuming the rate doesn't continue to increase as it has been.
