That pronouncement, unlike much that flows out of the court, makes sense to me. But if limits on money-speech strike me as illogical, the idea that there should be no limits is positively alarming. McCain-Feingold would put limits on hard money contributions and, as I read it, pretty much ban soft money contributions to political parties. Hagel's view is that the soft money given to parties is not the problem, since we at least know where the money is coming from. Because it takes a lot of money to buy the TV ads without which major campaigns cannot be mounted.
Politicians jump through all sorts of unseemly hoops for money because they're dead without it.
Take away the politician's need for obscene sums of money and maybe you reduce the likelihood of his being bought. We'd be arguing about how much free TV to make available or the thresholds for qualifying for it, but at least that is a debate I could understand. All I can make of the present one is that I'm for campaign finance reform, and I'm against people who are against campaign finance reform. I just don't know what it is. News Jobs AP Shopping Archives Entertain.