Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 01:16:06 EDT From: freemanaz@aol.com Subject: Re: [lpaz-discuss] Matching Funds To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com Cc: office@azclu.org Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
The issue of matching funds isnt so much a matter of principle as it is a matter of utility. As someone who considers himself a utilitarian, what matching funds really does is violates the rights of the majority (the people) to give taxpayer money to the few (the political candidates). What needs to be taken into account are policies that result in maximizing utility for the greatest number of people in which removing the state from the area of personal choice would do this. To do so otherwise, leads to undesirable consequences too since people are forced to subsidize a political candidates views whether or not they agree with them while driving them further into poverty via the additional taxes they have to pay to support the matching funds program. As to the best reason why mathing funds shouldnt be taken, consider this: matching funds are taxpayer money and taxpayer subsidies almost always come with strings attached. If you take that taxpayer money, you are basically permitting the governmment to come in and indirectly run your political campaign. Private money doesnt come with the strings attached and you have the freedom to spend it in the manner that you wish. Why would you as a candidate campaigning against government welfare programs want to take a government subsidythat will impose rules on your freedom of expression? The Un-Clean Elections money doled out here has many of the features that McCain Fiengold has and viola! the ACLU (who is at this very moment lobbying on Capitol Hill against the McCain Fiengold bill and which I am a member of) supports Un Clean Elections despite the fact that the candidate must be subject to the same rules as McCain Fiengold if they take the money. If people want to vote for a Libertarian (or any political candidate), they want to vote for a personwho practices what they preach. Taking taxpayer money for your election while calling for the abolition of government welfare programs and subsidies doesnt hold water with me and it wouldnt hold water with the electorate. Even still, remember what happened in Tucson with that mayoral candidate. The guy hardly did any campaigning and all the taxmoney was being used for was to pay him and his campaign staff. If you take the money as a Libertarian, you set a precednet for other LPers to come in who arent Libertarian at all and just run to pay themselves at taxpayer expense. You wouldnt want this to happen would you?
Mike
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson
Community email addresses: Post message: lpaz-discuss@onelist.com Subscribe: lpaz-discuss-subscribe@onelist.com Unsubscribe: lpaz-discuss-unsubscribe@onelist.com List owner: lpaz-discuss-owner@onlist.com Web site: www.ArizonaLibertarian.org
Shortcut URL to this page: http://www.onelist.com/community/lpaz-discuss
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/