Campaign Finance Laws

“Establishment” Republicans In Crisis For Presidential Nominee In 2016

Ronald 78 Comments

The “Establishment” Republicans are in a crisis, trying to find a Presidential nominee who Wall Street likes, and they thought they had New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, until his campaign collapsed, due to “Bridgegate”.

But then they thought they had a good alternative in Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who gained establishment backing by working against labor unions in his state, and surviving a recall election. However, violation of campaign finance laws and conflicts of interest by the governor’s aides is now creating troubles for Walker, and making his possible candidacy problematical.

Add in other governors who have had ethics violations, or have faced major controversies in the way they govern, including South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley; Florida Governor Rick Scott: Texas Governor Rick Perry; Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal; Michigan Governor Rick Snyder; and New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, among others.

Suddenly, looking to state governors as the solution for the “Establishment” Republicans to back against Tea Party types such as Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, and Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin seems unlikely to be a productive alternative!

Again, the best choices seem to be former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, but the likelihood of either seeking or winning the GOP nomination for President seems highly unlikely!

Instead, some are looking to Governor John Kasich of Ohio and Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as possible choices, and this blogger will write about them more at a later time!

Campaign Finance Laws In Limbo Awaiting Supreme Court Decision

Ronald 1 Comment

A momentous decision is about to be made by the US Supreme Court soon, regarding whether campaign finance laws that restrict spending by corporations and unions should be loosened, which would allow much more negative advertising in political campaigns, including the upcoming midterm congressional elections in November 2010.

Supporters of loosening campaign finance laws argue that it is a question of freedom of speech. The opposite view is that such a change would encourage undue influence in a negative way by powerful groups which have unlimited funds that could distort the truth and promote manipulation of voters by very negative campaign commercials and advertising.

It is clear to me that we should not want more corporate and union influence which would undermine political campaigns which are already too negative, tending to turn off voters from participating and making them feel that the power of money matters more than them.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will not be a partner in the undermining of American democracy, and will prevent the distortion of our system by wealthy special interests. This is not an issue of freedom of speech, but rather of the right of the American people to avoid demagogic methods used by pressure groups which care very little about anything other than their own special interests!