What's Ron Paul's stand on Campaign Finance Reform?

First off, let me say, i know next to nothing about these various finance reform things. There are a lot of ideas flying out there. I dont even know what Paul's stand on it is, but I think he is against public financing....Im not sure, so tell me.

I read this article and it seemed like it might be a good idea, is it?: http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/09/a-simple-workab.html


Reason im asking is because im trying to convert this guy. He Said he wont vote for a candidate that isnt for campaign finance reforming. How can I convice him that Ron Paul is the best candidate?

Mucha Gracias

I do not support public campaign financing because where do you think that money comes from? My "donation" to the "public" fund could very well end up going to people I don't want it to go to. We need less of this reform crap I think. I haven't looked into it but if it follows the golden rule that government sucks at fixing anything, they probably made the problem worse already and more reform would fuck the system even more.

Ron Paul's stand on campaign finance is to ask for $500K in 6 days and have it delivered in 3.

McCain-Feingold is one of the worst pieces of legislation in US history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctb619

McCain-Feingold is one of the worst pieces of legislation in US history

---

Wow. So many to choose from...how could you pick just one? Personally I'm leaning toward NAFTA.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=20

BAM! Delivered.

This is a great question and a critical issue. I'm just as in the dark as you are about the campaign laws, but I do know that they are heavily favored towards the major parties. That's something they can agree on.

Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would relax these biased laws and make third parties more competitive. Of course it never made it past the subcommittee, but it still shows his support for free market everywhere, including politics.

The article you provided is not the best solution for campaign finance reform. Ron Paul would assuredly oppose forcing taxpayers to fund political campaigns. A taxpayer may end up funding a candidate he doesn't support! This may very well be the case with McCain; expect him to take Federal Matching Funds come January (ironically, its a law he helped write and pushed through Congress).

It's late, and I haven't thoroughly read these articles, but I'm positive that there are answers on this page: http://www.cato.org/research/crg/finance.html . I've been a fan of the Cato Institute for some time now.

From RPLibrary, it looks like he is against reform in its current form, but he does want reform of some kind. I haven't read the articles and statements so I don't know exactly.

The idea that the Federal government should make rules about how campaigns are funded gives the Federal government the power to forbid you to take part in campaigns. If you give them power to limit your influence can't they therefore limit it to ZERO. If they can give Federal funds to candidates can't they decide who gets those Federal funds? Could they pass a law that only Neo-Con War Mongers get federal funds?

The last campaign finance law passed by Congress forbade voters from airing commercials criticizing politicians within 60 days of an election. The answer to our electoral problems is found not in restricting freedom or limiting access, but rather in following the Constitution and allowing maximum individual liberty.

I am still confused on Ron Paul's fundamental position on campaign finance. What is the libertarian viewpoint on campaign finance? I appreciate people should be able to
freely associate and spend their money how they want to. But I also don't know how an incumbent/candidate comes into play. The government shouldn't have undo
influence but yet a citizen should be free to do what he wants. What part of the puzzle am I not getting?