I’ve been thinking about the campaign finance ruling that came out. On the one hand, I agree with it in some ways, and in other ways I understand what was trying to be done. Disclosure seems like a happy compromise between what we had, which was not good, and what we may have — if the slope is slid down.
But one guy who I didn’t think would mind too much would be the guy who decided he didn’t really need to listen to public financing laws during this recent historic election. I mean, if ignoring the restrictions that campaign finance laws would put on me, who am I to rise up and say other people should be so shackled with restrictions?
The intent of both rules was the same — to try and keep some semblance of an illusion that big money doesn’t roll through campaigns. Yet, one is to be discarded, and the other one not? If only there were some -reason- why this was so. Besides, because one helps me and the other doesn’t, of course.