We Don't Need Any Limits on Campaign Money ...
Sen. John McCain Called Cruz a "Wacko Bird"
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) (on March 8, 2013 here) criticized his fellow Republicans for their filibuster of incoming CIA Director John O. Brennan over drone policy. In an interview with the Huffington Post, McCain referred to Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI) as “wackos,” then adding they were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else. But I also think that when, you know, it's always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone.” When asked to clarify, McCain said he was referencing “Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Justin Amash, whoever.” McCain then 8 days later issued an apology.
Um… actually I think McCain was premature about his apology based on this story. Ted Cruz really is a wacko bird based on this from him recently while in New Hampshire, he advocated “no limits on political cash – none at all.”
Cruz advocates the “no limits in exchange for instant disclosure” further saying that deep-pocketed donors should have the same rights to write giant campaign checks as voters have to put signs in their front yards calling them both “free speech.” When he was asked about the outsized role of money in politics Cruz said he understands voters' frustration but that cannot trump the constitutional rights to free speech, the answer is not to muzzle citizens. It is to empower citizens he said. After the session, one activist gave Cruz a blank check and told him to write it for whatever amount he needed.
Accepting that check would trigger an official entrance into a Republican primary, so he declined but told an aide to follow up with the man after his campaign is made official, if it is.
Accepting that check would trigger an official entrance into a Republican primary, so he declined but told an aide to follow up with the man after his campaign is made official, if it is.
My views are consistent and have been for years. Yes, it does take money to run an effective campaign, no doubt about that, but the amounts, sources, and ties are the issue.
When one person can give (Sheldon Adelson in 2012 for example and not to pick on him, but an excellent example) can give $100 million and not blink an eye … questions arise. Is that his free speech vs. my $1,000 free speech (example)?
Koch brothers are not pledging to raise and spend nearly $1 billion in 2016 – what do they expect in return? They only have one vote just like you and I but deep pockets – um… does not seem very representative to me?
Having all the money in the world and pouring it into a campaign does not always equal a win (cite: Adelson and Koch both in 2012), but the ability to give that much sure hampers lesser amounts of money – that competition thing.
Sure seems like that to me especially as people like Cruz cling to the “money equals free speech” nonsense – yes, it may be rightly called speech – but are millionaires and billionaires entitled to more speech than anyone else in
Now sprinkle in GOP Rep. Aaron Schock resigning from Congress due string of ethics charges ...
Add Aaron Schock to the Wacko Bird Nest
And, here, step into his DC Congressional Office ... wow ... yeah, wow... so, it's not the money and power, right - BS.
No comments:
Post a Comment