I've been pretty rough on Senator Scott Brown (R-Ted Kennedy's Seat) lately, wondering aloud whether he has any particular use other than being one more in the head count toward a Republican majority. The question seems to have a different answer each day.
Today, Scott Brown got an important question right when he announced that he would not support the Democrat's DISCLOSE Act, a so-called campaign finance bill designed to thwart the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United which allowed corporations to pay for political advertising within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. (It also allowed unions to do so, it seems, but unions were already finding ways to get money to politicians so the impact on them was much smaller than the impact on corporations.)
You can read further analysis of the DISCLOSE Act by the Cato Institute's John Samples here:
According to the ABC News report: "'Rather than reform our campaign finance laws and provide increased transparency, the DISCLOSE Act advances the political agenda of the majority party and special interests in an effort to gain a tactical and political advantage little more than 100 days before an election,' Brown said."
Although I would have preferred and even stronger statement in favor of First Amendment free speech rights rather than just objecting on tactical political grounds, Brown's end result is the right one and could ring the death knell for the Dem's cynical scheme. If so, Brown deserves our thanks and our urging to keep siding with liberty and the Constitution, rather than continually trying to be a "moderate", siding with the Dems on one thing and the Republicans on the next.
|<< <||> >>|