Presidential Funding Act of 2007

The "Presidential Funding Act of 2007" was officially announced today.  

The major purpose of the bill is to restrict and limit a candidate’s ability to speak.   And the coercive matching fund provision is the vehicle of choice for forcing speech limits upon all candidates.

More than three decades of suppressing political speech through oppressive regulations has done nothing to benefit our political system. So instead of reviving the presidential public financing system, it should be time to consider abolishing it and returning to First Amendment principles.

The 2008 election has seen hotly contested, multi-candidate primaries in both parties, with excellent discussion of issues and a wide variety of well-financed viewpoints.  And the thought that Senator Obama, Senator Clinton, or Senator McCain is any more or less corrupt by having to raise money from the American people is laughable.

We should be celebrating the return of well-funded campaigns that have the resources to communicate with voters instead of looking for coercive ways to silence candidates.

Filed Under: Blog

A $5 billion election

A Sunday editorial in the New York Times expressed great consternation over the thought of a $5 billion election cycle.

Similar to others who shudder at the cost of democracy, the Times advocates for even more government regulation of political speech. Quizzically, the Times partly blames the candidates for wanting to get their message out – or in the words of the Times – the "willingness of candidates and party machines to ignore the spirit of the law."

CCP has already written on the potential of $5 billion election. But on Monday, the New York Sun took up the issue in an editorial titled "The Bargain of Democracy."

Click the headline for more.

Filed Under: Blog

The Center for Competitive Politics is now the Institute for Free Speech.