Q: Some have equated money with speech, meaning that any restriction on the amount of money a candidate can raise or spend is a restriction on the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Do you agree that a campaign contribution is the same as speech?
A: Yes. The so-called "campaign finance reform act" is unconstitutional. It should be called the "Incumbent Protection Act", or the "Only the Media can say bad things about politicians Act". Here again is an example of the courts failing to do their
duty, ignoring a clear constitutionally guaranteed right, while they're busy inventing others. I don't think we fully realize just how bad this `reform' is yet. We will, though. Under the act, in the critical weeks before an election, citizens are
banned from pooling their money to buy ads that say anything negative about a politician! Only the media and other politicians can exercise free speech under this law. This is in direct violation of the First Amendment.
Source: Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Questionnaire
Aug 12, 2004
Campaign Finance Reform Act is unconstitutional
The so-called "Campaign Finance Reform Act" is unconstitutional. It should be called the "Incumbent Protection Act", or the "Only the Media can say bad things about politicians Act". Here again is an example of the courts failing to do their duty,
ignoring a clear constitutionally guaranteed right, while they're busy inventing others. I don't think we fully realize just how bad this `reform' is yet. We will, though.
By ridding America of all unconstitutional programs, we will get spending under control and improve government services at the same time. When a special interest group wants to add spending in a way that makes sense, I will agree to support it
with one caveat: they must first identify an equal or greater amount of current spending that is less worthy of support than their idea. This will have the special interests working against each other, not the taxpayers.
