56,003
edits
Document:LP News 1974 January-February Issue 18: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Document:LP News 1974 January-February Issue 18 (view source)
Revision as of 22:03, 22 March 2022
, 22 March 2022→ExecComm meets
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
Finance Committee Chairman [[Bob Meier]] spoke on fund-raising possibilities; he will present a comprehensive report on possible Special Projects--including a film about the LP--at the meeting of the new ExecComm this June. $200 was appropriated to finance legal research by [[Gary Greenberg]], to find out more about election laws in every state. $100 was appropriated to [[Scott Royce]], to use in fighting Federal financing of elections. $900 was appropriated for magazine advertising. | Finance Committee Chairman [[Bob Meier]] spoke on fund-raising possibilities; he will present a comprehensive report on possible Special Projects--including a film about the LP--at the meeting of the new ExecComm this June. $200 was appropriated to finance legal research by [[Gary Greenberg]], to find out more about election laws in every state. $100 was appropriated to [[Scott Royce]], to use in fighting Federal financing of elections. $900 was appropriated for magazine advertising. | ||
=Anti-socialist parties gain ground in Danish election= | |||
The quasi-libertarian Progress Party pulled | |||
15% of the vote in Denmark's national elections last December 4, but the country is still | |||
overwhelmingly socialistic in its political preferences; that's the situation in a nutshell. | |||
Before the election, five parties were represented in the Danish parliament; after the dust settled, the total had risen to ten, with the five "new" parties capturing over one-third of the vote. But many of the changes were little more than illusory, as parties across the spectrum were rent by schisms. | |||
Biggest gainer was the Progress Party, which gained 28 seats, making it the second-largest bloc in the new Parliament--but much of their gain came at the expense of the Conservative Party, also anti-socialist, which dropped from 31 seats and second place to 16 seats and fifth. | |||
Before the election, the Conservative Party had held 17% of the seats, with 83% being held by four parties of a socialist nature. Afterwards, the anti-socialists' share had risen to 28%. | |||
The new anti-socialist bloc consists of the Progress Party (very loosely equivalent to the | |||
LP) with 15%, the Conservative Party (roughly equivalent to the GOP) with 9%, and the new Christian Party (somewhat similar to the American Independent Party in this country) with 4%. In addition, the Social Democratic Party (socialist) lost its more conservative wing to the new | |||
Center Democratic Party (about like our Dems), which picked up 8%. | |||
But, while the anti-socialists now hold | |||
28% of the seats in the Danish parliament, | |||
with "middle of the roaders" holding 8%, | |||
the socialists and super-socialists still | |||
hold 59%, with 5% being held by parties | |||
whose views we have not been able to determine. | |||
So while the gains of the Progress Party are slightly encouraging, they are no cause for loud hurrahs. The grim fact remains that even in a country where the people are far more heavily taxed and regulated than we are, and a multi-party system is accepted, a libertarian-leaning party with a nationally famous figure as its leader | |||
was able to pick up only one-seventh of the vote, and half of that was at the expense of the only other anti-socialist party previously in | |||
existence. | |||
=POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE= | |||
==XIV. FEDERAL CAMPAIGN FINANCING--A PLAN TO FEED GOLIATH AND STARVE DAVID== | |||
Public financing of election campaigns is not a new idea--Teddy Roosevelt proposed it--but | |||
it is a dubious and dangerous one. Passage of public financing legislation would mean that our tax dollars would be turned over to political candidates to pay for their cam- paigns. In other words, we would no longer | |||
be forced to support only the winners and the bureaucratic morass they have created, we would be stuck subsidizing the election antics of all the politicians. The fright- ening thing is that such legislation is already--in part—on the books, and that the Senate overwhelmingly adopted a major public financing proposal recently. | |||
On November 27, Sen. Kennedy and some 35 cosponsors brought to the floor an amendment to the Federal Debt Ceiling bill that would have done the following things: 1) expanded the $1 income tax form check-off, and | |||
created a special fund in the Treasury for money received as a result; 2) employed this money to finance the campaigns of candidates for federal office, including presidential primary contestants, presidential candidates and Congressional candidates in the general election; 3) paid for any deficit between allocations to such candidates and checked-off funds by direct appropriation from the Treasury; 4) discriminated between candidates of "major’' parties and those of "new" or | |||
"minor" parties in setting the formula for allocation of funds under the Act; 5) banned virtually all private donations to candidates, except to candidates in Congressional primar- ies, candidates for presidential nominations (here public funds would be allocated on a matching basis after receipt of $100,000, no donation to be larger than $100), "minor" | |||
and "new" party candidates, or to state or national party committees (the total any such committee could receive or expend was also limited under a set formula); 6) set spending limits for each type of federal campaign in each state; 7) provided stiff penalties for violations; 8) provided that these provisions would go into effect beginning with the 1974 election. | |||
The amendment was attached to the bill on a series of votes. An attempt to kill it drew only 36 votes, with 59 opposed. Several of those 36 Senators opposed the measure not because they were against public financing, but only because they disagreed with various provisions of the bill or felt that it went too far, too quickly. The Kennedy amendment was stricken from the bill a week later— | |||
but only after a courageous filibuster led by Sen. James Allen (D-Ala.). Even then, | |||
had the authorization for the present federal debt level not expired during the filibuster, threatening the government with bankruptcy, the amendment would probably have passed. | |||
Well, you might say, if public financing was voted down, what have we got to worry about? The problem is that part of the deal made when the amendment was stricken from the debt | |||
bill was that it would be duly considered and reported to the floor by spring. The monster is not dead, it is only sleeping. And,separated from the complex Debt Ceiling bill situation, it will pass unless public opinion can be mobilized against it. Fighting public financing ought to be a project of every state party this spring. | |||
Why should the Libertarian Party be particulary concerned about this legislation? First, | |||
public financing is a serious abridgement of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment. Prohibiting virtually all private donations violates the right of free political expression. Even Sen. Stevenson, a supporter of public financing and a cosponsor of the Kennedy amendment, recognized this during the debate. Speaking on an amendment he offered which would have softened prohibitions on individual donations, he stated: | |||
It would not be constitutional to say to every individual in this country, | |||
’You cannot contribute one cent or | |||
$1, or $5.’ At some point it becomes constitutional (to limit contributions). That is the cause of my quarrel with | |||
the amendment introduced by Senator KENNEDY, which prohibits all individual contributions except under limited circumstances. That is unconstitutional. (CONG. RECORD, p. S 21211) | |||
I would be inclined to contend that any limitation on an individual’s right to contrib- ute infringes his right of free political expression, but certainly the sort of prohibitions that Kennedy and his supporters are urging violates the First Amendment. | |||
As taxpayers we should be upset at the potential cost of such legislation. Sen. Kennedy | |||
modestly estimates that his plan would cost | |||
$300 million over the four year election cycle. Others are inclined to view this as a far too conservative guess. Furthermore, once such legislation is instituted, there is nothing | |||
to prevent Congress from raising the possible allocations. After all, Congressmen these days seem notoriously fond of increasing their salaries and benefits. There is every reason to believe that $300 million, even if an accurate cost estimate at present, would be only the beginning. | |||
We should be concerned, too, because public financing will have a real impact upon the Party’s chances of winning elections. The Kennedy plan, which has the most support on Capitol Hill, and most other such plans all discriminate in setting allocations. Major parties automatically receive a large amount | |||
of public funds, while smaller parties and independents—if they want such money—are entitled to only limited amounts. Thus, non- established contenders must still use large amounts of time and effort in locating funds, while the established opposition moves ahead with the campaign. Such discrimination will open up additional avenues for a constitutional challenge, of course. But should such a law | |||
be upheld, once it has been in effect for some time it will become harder to solicit money | |||
or to win with such money, since private | |||
contributions will be severely limited in size and will tend to become suspect. Furthermore, the Kennedy plan is drawn in such a way as to benefit incumbents. | |||
Finally, public financing is a direct | |||
contradiction of what the Libertarian Party | |||
is attempting to accomplish—the liberation | |||
of America from the grasp of the traditional politicians. The public itself seems to be moving away from them now in the light of Watergate. A mid-September Gallup poll | |||
showed that some 33% of the American people | |||
no longer identify with either of the two established parties. And only a few percent of those who paid taxes last year used the | |||
$1 check-off—an indication that the taxpayers are less than eager to be forced to pay for | |||
the politicians' campaigns. | |||
Public financing abolishes the right to refrain from participation in politics, the right to participate or not participate in the political marketplace of ideas. At present individuals can refrain from donating to the depressing established candidates. Under public financing we will be forced to subsidize the balloons, empty leaflets, and smiley-face commercials of them all. | |||
No one likes the present political corruption, but the answer to it is not in further | |||
"campaign reform" legislation. Corruption will continue as long as the government holds the power to tax, regulate, and dispense favors. As long as there is Big Government there will be interests which will attempt to use it to their advantage. The solution is | |||
to cut back the size and authority of government, not to impose new regulations. | |||
At worst it would be better to place our trust in a skeptical public and the investigative reporting of an unrestricted press than to impose panaceas which will further erode American liberties. | |||
Public financing is a road away from, rather than toward, freedom. It is incumbent upon us as libertarians to oppose it with all the resources at our command. | |||
-/- Eric Scott Royce | |||
<div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">[[LP News|'''<big>GO BACK TO INDEX OF LP NEWS</big>''']]</div> | <div class="center" style="width: auto; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">[[LP News|'''<big>GO BACK TO INDEX OF LP NEWS</big>''']]</div> | ||
[[Category: LP News]] | [[Category: LP News]] | ||