This time the law in question is Arizona’s. It’s ironic that one state can create a law hated by progressives everywhere and also create one loved by progressives everywhere.
Arizona offers government financed campaign funding – nobody is challenging that. The argument is about a refinement that allows the capped government funds to be tripled if a non-participating candidate raises more money than the state cap and/or is supported by campaigning paid for by others. That, opponents claim, is unConstitutional. I hope so.
In my view, the SCOTUS decision already made, regarding spending by groups and corporations, had meritorious arguments on both sides. This one does not. This part of the law suggests the sloppiest of thinking – perhaps that is what it has in common with that immigration law.
Think about it. If supporters are wild about a candidate and contribute generously to her campaign, why would we voters want the state to give our tax money in equal amounts to her competitor?
Think of all those groupies that contributed their internet dimes and nickels to Barack Obama at the height of his campaign – what if Uncle Sam had matched their efforts by giving John McCain dollar for dollar?
In my glorious Red state, a mentally handicapped, unemployed crazy paid the fee and became the Democratic candidate for US Senator running against an incumbent with $millions in his war chest. Absolutely nobody, on any side, would want to have given even one tax payer dollar to this guy.
Without apology to progressives and commies, government simply cannot legislate behavior or ever “level playing fields” without making things worse. Suck it up folks. And “conservatives”, apply this immutable law to your own nonsense.
Hopefully, SCOTUS will do the right thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment