Jan 29

Dadgum Furriners

Tag: politicsDonna B. @ 6:41 pm

How dare they interfere with our politics? Why… there oughta be a law!

Of course there is a law saying foreign nationals do not have all the rights of political free speech granted to natives, both corporeal and corporate. And despite what some (our President, for example) are saying, the recent Supreme Court ruling doesn’t say that restriction is unconstitutional.

But… I have long had misgivings about interference of simple speech, ie speech not directly tied to a cash contribution, in our political shenanigans. For example, I thought the Guardian’s Operation Clark County was astoundingly arrogant, but not illegal.

In this same light, I felt it both legal and “OK” to express my desire that Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. I did not feel that it was right for me to donate money to him. I’m not a Massachusetts resident — I am a foreigner to Massachusetts. (on several levels!)

While I am completely comfortable with the idea that cash — however generated — enables free speech, I’m not comfortable with cash from outside the boundaries of the election. I would be highly irritated if Bossier City residents poured money into the campaigns of Shreveport mayoral candidates, for example.

I’m not entirely comfortable with Lech Walesa openly campaigning within this country in a governor’s race also. He’s definitely a foreign national and he’s raising money for a candidate in a U.S. race? That does not set well with me.

But, more importantly… is it legal?

7 Responses to “Dadgum Furriners”

  1. Jim says:

    Agreed. For this reason I will not endorse a candidate that is not on MY ballot; I have no right to attempt to influence other areas. I have contributed to one candidate and that was in a parish-wide race. I don’t like to give money to politicians.
    The comments in the Operation Clark County article were hilarious.

  2. CGHill says:

    Of course, if some of the Democrats had their way, said dadgum furriners would actually be voting in our elections. God knows they’ll try to register anything recognizable as a primate.

  3. Bryan C. says:

    This shows that having contributions from “outsiders” on any level, be they corporations or individuals can be a double-edged sword come election day. You may convince some people of your point of view, but you may just as easily rile others up with the idea of “who is he to tell me anything”.

    Excellent post.

  4. Icepick says:

    In this same light, I felt it both legal and “OK” to express my desire that Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race. I did not feel that it was right for me to donate money to him. I’m not a Massachusetts resident — I am a foreigner to Massachusetts. (on several levels!)

    While I am completely comfortable with the idea that cash — however generated — enables free speech, I’m not comfortable with cash from outside the boundaries of the election. I would be highly irritated if Bossier City residents poured money into the campaigns of Shreveport mayoral candidates, for example.

    I’ve thought this for years. My proposal for campaign finance reform would be this: Anyone can give any sum of money to a candidate with two restrictions: (1) Disclosure must be public and immediate, and (2) you can only give to candidates that you can legally vote for.

    There are two obvious problems with my idea, though. First, it would take a constitutional amendment to enact. Second, that might just make third parties more powerful. For example, in some poor congressional district neither candidate might be able to raise much money. Some outside organization (a party, PAC, business or just some individual) could spend a gob of money in the district to bolster the candidate of their choice. (Or even a candidate in another race that includes the same area: for example a gubernatorial or presidential candidate doing adds that say, “Vote for me and my good buddy Whosits!”)

    The only way around that would be some sort of restrictions concerning who could run adds and when, but then it gets very dicey as that WOULD be regulation of free speech.

  5. Jim says:

    “Second, that might just make third parties more powerful.”

    What in the world would be wrong with that? Do you think that the parties in power have done such a wonderful job?
    Personally, I wish we had followed the advice of the founding fathers and had NO parties!

  6. Icepick says:

    Jim, I’m not talking about political parties, I’m talking about any third actor not directly involved in the election. In fact, if you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that. So your second question is meaningless, as you are basing it on a false premise.

    As for the Founders, they actually started the whole two-party business in this country. George Washington warned against it, but it had already happened by the time he saw fit to criticize.

  7. Jim says:

    I had to re-read and apologize; your meaning was that the problem would be with the powers in charge, not a problem in your eyes.
    As for the founders, Washington was not the only one, Jefferson and Madison commented on it too. Although as Washington noted, human nature will win out.