Anti-Paul Letter Needs Rebuttal

[angelatc]

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=95112ecb490e3201&-session=TheDailyNews:42F946770f043006A8Wov35E6E17

Tell me what to say and I'll write it. Better yet would be the member here who lives in his district.

[foofighter20x]

I'd simply ask the following:

How about instead of letting Congress pass laws which it doesn't have the authority to pass we not elect Congresspersons without the integrity or backbone to not take bribes?

[ThePieSwindler]

What are these measures even reforming, exactly. The writer of the letter doesn't give specifics.

[JaylieWoW]

From: ron-paul-2008.blogspot.com

Letter to Editor: Ron Paul Votes Against Reform Measures - Response

I found this letter to the editor questioning why Ron Paul voted against some reform measures...

-----------------------
"Since it appears to have gone unnoticed, 14th Congressional District voters should be advised that their representative, Ron Paul, voted against two lobby reform measures that were voted on in the House of Representatives two weeks ago.


On one vote, on a lobbyist oversight bill, Paul was one of 22 congressmen who voted in the negative. (The bill passed, 396-22.)


The other bill, which tightened requirements for delivery of campaign contributions by lobbyists, passed 382-37.


Paul’s vote was against the bill.I hope Paul gives us an explanation for these votes before the Republican primary in March."


Joseph Ahern Galveston
--------------------------

Dear Joseph,


I'm not Ron Paul, obviously, but I thought I'd help out on your concerns. I did a simple Google search for 'Ron Paul lobby reform measure' and found the below excerpt from Wiki.


"In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional Authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers."


Thanks for giving me the chance to address this and show you how to find such information for yourself.


Have a wonderful day and please write with more questions,
WillyPete

I think if you wanted to sum up in a small sound byte you could simply say that "removing the opportunity of those who don't have big money to support the candidate of their choice only further opens the field for greater campaign finance unfairness."

Consider the impact of PACs. Bottom line is big money will find a way around reform whereas the "little guys" like you and I would be left stuck without the ability to directly support a specific candidate.

[beermotor]

Haha, WillyPete pwnt him.

[Duckman]

I have mixed feelings about campaign finance reform.

On the one hand, I agree with those who think that our current "follow the money" political system is corrupt.

On the other hand, I agree with those who feel that restricting freedom of speech and free association is unacceptable, and I'm sure that's why Ron Paul opposed these bills.

What would be wrong with campaign finance reform such that only individual U.S. citizens (no corporations or organizations) can make campaign donations?

How will the "big corrupt money" influences find their way around that?

Would it be constitutional?

[Quantumystic]

Just got off the phone w/ the D.C. office. Here's the deal.

They're aware of the Letter.

The Dr. voted against both bills because of language in the bills he felt was unConstitutional. That could infringe upon the ability of Congresspersons to have access to their constituents speaking about community interests. His official position is...

"Congress should be "reforming" itself. Not Lobbyists".

Classic Paul :D

[surf]

stating the obvious - and i would assume Dr. Paul carries similar thoughts - the most effective campaign finance reform is to cut government spending dramatically.
this would, obviously, reduce lobbyists. this is just one argument for freedom here. another is that a corporation not feeding off the government buffet line will not benefit buying porterhouse steaks for Fred Thompson and thus, probably won't. If Joe's headshop, however, has a group of owners that love Ron Paul (or Ralph Nader), why not allow them to contribute as a group? that's freedom.
my .02