Forgive me, but I couldn’t help but be startled by the above headline of the latest analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute. I mean, the much lauded campaign finance reform effort of a few years ago - the so-called McCain- Feingold bill was supposed to have banned soft money. In fact all the campaign finance reform groups — I don’t think there was a single exception — made a devil’s bargain. In order to get that much praised ban on soft money, the reform groups agreed to double the limits that individuals could give to campaigns. (Someone has yet to explain to me how allowing the less than one-tenth of one percent who give big money to give even more money was a reform.) McCain still carries the mantel of "reformer" because of his championing the legislation

This was a no brainer to predict even then: soft money is back in a big way.

What to do now? See this.

0 Comments

Last week, Matt Stoller, president of Blog PAC, principal at Open Left, and Sunlight Foundation consultant, gave an interesting speech at the University of Connecticut Law School where he advocates a rethinking of the historic approach to campaign finance law, a system that has not kept pace with the Web 2.0 revolution. 

Reformers usually think about changing the campaign finance laws to limit the influence of big money in politics. As we know, the lion’s share of the money is spent on TV, radio, and for mass mailings, what Matt terms "spammy media." This, he says, should be regulated. But for the Internet, what Matt calls "social media" because of its infinite possibilities  for consumption and participation, he suggests a deregulation scheme.  Specifically calling for the establishment of a kind of two-tierd regulatory system that limits the "spam quotient" of modern campaigns and encourages the social context of politics.

Interesting… Check it out.

0 Comments