Partisanship, Who Needs It?

Partisanship, Who Needs It?

Monday, January 28, 2008


As much of the Conservative blogosphere lines up to cast stones at john McCain's candidacy, one thing struck me a couple of days ago. Much of their ire comes from McCain's sponsorship of the McCain-Feingold bill on campaign finance. The argument is usually one that it is an unconstitutional impediment to free speech. Yet I have yet to see any of these conservatives bring Taft- Hartley into the debate. Taft-Hartley severely restrained the influence of the trade unions, and among its provisions were limits on campaign finance. Perhaps they should revisit and discuss this act along with McCain-Feingold when making their claims of unconstitutionality.

While they are at it they might also look at; The Federal Corrupt Practices Act, The Federal Election Campaign Act, The Hatch Act, The Naval Appropriations Bill of 1867, The Civil Service Reform Act, The Smith-Connally Act, The Espionage Act of 1917, and The Sedition Act of 1918.

Campaign finance restrictions that are viewed as unconstitutional only when they work against one's party, but not when they benefit it seem the epitome of hypocrisy to me. That's why I dismiss those who make this criticism of McCain-Feingold as partisan hypocrites and fools. It would be refreshing to see them called on this more often and forced to defend their positions to the blogosphere at large.

1 comment:

John said...

I was checking out your blog and wanted to invite you to cross link with our political magazine:

We're launching a blog roll and would love to list you there too. With over 500K readers a month, I thought cross linking would be mutually beneficial. We saw that you're listing a lot of other political magazines such as us so we hope you'll list us too.