The Strangest Of Bedfellows
The Free Market Foundation, Texas Eagle Forum and the ACLU in open court together arguing the same side of a case, who would have thought it? It is true, politics does make for strange bedfellows. We’ve all heard the jokes of only pastors and bootleggers showing up to protest a county’s proposal to lift its alcohol ban, but consider this a real life example.
Now think about the position this puts us in. Inevitably, I as a conservative am going to either have to disagree with leading conservative groups or agree with possibly the most liberal organization ever. It’s not fair, but alas, those who know me know that I enjoy stepping outside of the box. I can’t say for sure what side I will take, but I promise you that by the end of this post we’ll find out if I’m turning a cold shoulder to my brethren or getting in bed with liberals.
But first a look at the issue at hand…the House Speaker’s race, and if it is a violation of free speech to limit the amount that an individual can personally spend to aid in the election or defeat of a Speaker candidate. The three before mentioned groups are arguing that answer is yes.
The current limit, 100 dollars, was put in place in the early seventies as a reform measure to keep the Speaker’s race an internal matter and to avoid the perception that big donors could essentially buy themselves a House Speaker. So with that in mind, let’s travel down this long and windy path to resolution.
The first question that comes to my mind is how exactly is this going to work if the cap is lifted? Are big donors and groups with deep pockets going to go into the districts with Members who are sitting on the fence and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to sway the voters of those areas into urging their Representative to go one way or the other?
This last primary, we saw our first litmus test in if voters are cognizant to and care about who the House Speaker is. And as we saw, the candidates and donors who put all their chips on those two answers being yes lost badly. As it turns out, local voters cared more about who their state rep. was and what that person stood for more than some other guy from all the way across the state who holds a big gavel.
Since I see big money campaigns taken to the voters of Texas as more likely to be a nuisance on them than actually bringing positive influence to the Speaker’s race, put a check mark on the Keep the Cap side.
But don’t jump to conclusions just yet. We are far from being done here. I am a big first amendment supporter, and I may not aways agree with what you say but far be me to quiet your cause. Since money directly effects communication and one’s voice, I see the merit in the first amendment argument. So, just like that we are tied up at 1 - 1.
This brings us back to the other spectrum, and where I will also side with the Speaker’s race being an internal issue that outside forces need not mettle with. As I see it, I as a public citizen do not have a vote in the Speaker’s race, therefore why would my influence be warranted? If the pending Speaker of the House is an important issue to me, then it is incumbent upon me as a voter to secure ahead of time which way candidates intend to vote in the Speaker’s race, and then cast my vote accordingly.
So just like that we are at 2 -1. But here is where the score evens up. Those who do, think we shouldn’t lift the cap because doing so would create the perception that the Speaker was bought and paid for. Yet I will submit to you, that the possibility of that perception already exists. Speakers and their opposing candidates can still raise money through their House campaigns and their various PACs. Though I do not side with this opinion, Speaker Craddick has already been accused of being bought and paid for through the money he has raised for his re-election campaign, his PAC, and even the private money he has sought after to renovate the Speaker’s apartment.
Frankly, since the perception is already here, why not go all the way with it?
So that brings us to 2 - 2, meaning that this decision is going to hinge with my gut. And my gut says that the cap needs to stay. Bottom line, I see the merits in both arguments, but at the end of the day, I view the Speaker’s race as an internal matter for the 150 members to deal with and not millions of Texas voters who probably are not that interested in the first place.
As such, I turn my back on the Free Market Foundation and Texas Eagle Forum. Sorry guys, but there comes a time when a person has to go their own way. For me, this is that time.