XXXXX Campaign Finance Reform XXXXX
The Constitution grants no authority to Congress to limit contributions to any particular candidate's campaign, or to regulate their campaign money in any way. Many Republicans and Democrats have tried to limit special interest groups from making their own ads in support of candidates. This is a clear violation of the freedom of speech.
But, you ask, what about "soft money" corrupting politicians? That's easy. A government that is bound by the chains of the Constitution won't be subject to such corruption. Government has no Constitutional authority to set laws regarding unions and minimum wage laws, so labor unions won't have the desire to support candidates to get these laws passed. If politicians stay out of the business of setting high prices on dairy products, they won't be milked by dairy farmer lobbyists. Many times, large companies are forced to contribute to politicians out of fear of what the politicians might do if they don't contribute! And trial lawyers love the Democrats, who make it easy for them to file and win frivolous lawsuits. With the income tax repealed, you will be free to donate more money to candidates you believe in.
Chiquita bananas supported the US Senate campaign of Ohio's own Mike Dewine, and he voted to raise high tariffs on imported bananas, causing Americans to pay higher prices. Had he followed Economics 101, that free trade works best, this would not have happened.
However, you can be sure that anyone who supports a Libertarian candidate is someone who supports liberty. People who financially support Libertarians are not looking for a handout. While it may sound like a good idea to limit the campaign contributions of big government supporters, the end doesn't justify the means. Limits on how much a person can spend also hurt the minor parties, who must spend more time looking for donors since no individual is allowed to donate more than $1000. But of course they hurt the minor parties. The Republicans/Democrats will do all they can to keep their control over government. Parties must also devote a good deal of their resources to keeping up with all the campaign finance laws. Yet this doesn't affect the major parties, because they just run larger campaigns.
Republicans and Democrats also spend tens of millions of dollars on their campaigns including their conventions. Pat Buchanan of the Reform Party also received a $12.6 million welfare check for his recent campaign. Republicans claim to be champions of smaller government, but have no problem taking the money you earned and spending it on themselves. The Libertarian Party is the party of principle. Harry Browne met the FEC requirements for federally matching funds in 1996 and 2000, and he turned them down. (He obtained them by receiving $5000 in 20 different states, with no single contribution counting for more than $250. The Green Party's Ralph Nader hoped to secure federally matching funds for 2004 by obtaining 5% of the popular vote. Thankfully he fell short. Pat Buchanan received funds because of Ross Perot running for the Reform Party in 1996.)
A study by the National Taxpayer's Union found that over $327 million was spent to elect the president in 2000. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200012\POL20001220a.html
We support the abolishment of the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) and repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act and the Public Financing Law.
Ballot access:
We oppose all efforts by Republicans/Democrats to limit third party access to
getting on ballots by requiring a ridiculous number of signatures. Time and
money that could be spent campaigning is wasted collecting signatures. Of course,
that's how the big two want it to be.