Sensenbrenner just doesn’t get it!

Or maybe he does, and that’s the problem.

By Jack E. Lohman

In a letter to Jessie Read, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (WI-R-CD5)  claimed “… H.R. 1826, the Fair Elections Now Act, provides for publicly financed elections. I do not think it is appropriate for American taxpayers to be forced to pay for the campaign activities of candidates they do not support.”

Duh!!!  Our tax dollars already are used to fund political campaigns. It’s just through the back door – in hidden taxes – and at a cost hundreds of times more than if we simply paid for the elections up front. And through this same back door our tax dollars are being spent on candidates we don’t support because they give our tax dollars to the special interests that fund their elections.

“Additionally,” he says, “banning private contributions and activities would place an unconstitutional limit on freedom of speech in direct violation of the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision.”

Wrong. Having a law degree you’d expect Sensenbrenner to know better. The Fair Elections Now Act is 100% voluntary by the candidate and does not alter speech for those wishing to stay with private cash!  It has absolutely nothing to do with Buckley. Any candidate can choose not to take campaign contributions that could make them appear to be bought by industry, so public funding is 100% legal and not in violation of Buckley or any other Supreme Court decision about limiting speech.

These are Red Herrings — smoke screens — that politicians use to make their positions sound correct when they really aren’t. They mainly want to make themselves look good and the questioner uninformed.

Nice try Jim.

Problem is, public funding of elections is fair because it gives the challengers enough cash to run a credible race against the incumbent. But incumbent politicians don’t like “fair,” so they oppose it.

At the federal level we are paying about $3000 per taxpayer each year in excess taxes that go to the Fat Cats that fund the elections. Today we’re talking about eliminating school buses because of their cost, which exactly makes my case: bankers give campaign contributions and school kids don’t. So our politicians will bail out one and kill the other.

I’d rather pay the $5 the Fair Elections Now Act would cost me.

Politicians spend money unnecessarily because they are PAID TO spend money unnecessarily… by the Fat Cats that want taxpayer assets. Debt and deficits and high taxes result, but as well, we spend money that instead should have been spent on needed infrastructure. It can happen no other way.

The bank bailout occurred because the bankers are heavy campaign contributors. Wars occur because the defense industry are heavy campaign contributors. Had enough?

Our corrupt political system is the reason — the ONLY reason — our economy crashed and the nation’s poverty rate is so high. Politicians took cash bribes and passed NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT that made it financially attractive to CEOs to outsource jobs to countries with lower wages. They even give taxpayer-funded subsidies to companies that outsource to India… money that should instead be spent on creating jobs in America.

Campaign bribes also succeeded in getting congress to repeal the Glass-Steagall banking regulations in 1999 that were put into place following the crash in the 1930’s. Thanks guys.

If campaign contributions created this problem, only public funding of campaigns can reverse it. H.R. 1826 is not perfect but it is a start, and Rep. Sensenbrenner should support it if he really cares for his constituents.

2 Responses to Sensenbrenner just doesn’t get it!

  1. Election Reform as a Way to Put Republicans on the Spot

    What can progressives and Democrats do about the anti-Washington tide sweeping the country? The economy certainly isn’t going to get much better before the November election.

    One practical and symbolic thing they could do is to pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which likely to be voted out of committee next Thursday. The Act, sponsored by Rep. John Larsen of Connecticut, with 165 co-sponsors and at least 40 more supporters, would give matching money to candidates who agreed to raise only small donations. It even has three Republican co-sponsors.

    See HERE (but don’t look for Sensenbrenner on the list of supporters)

  2. And to be fair, Sensenbrenner voted against the disastrous ObamaCare, but he ALSO would have voted against what our businesses and public needs: a single-payer Medicare-for-all system that would have saved our nation $400 billion at the cost of our for-profit insurers (in which he has financial investments).

%d bloggers like this: