Legislature: Campaign finance put on fast track

In the interest of clarity, I’m not using a Venn Diagram to show who in the legislature are Fascist. If one belongs to the Progressive, the Jackass, the RINO, or the Liberal parties or any party of Big Government, you are so tainted.
Now with the term fascist comfortably defined, and individuals properly tarred, understanding why insuring incumbency through campaign finance reform is their cause cèlébre.
The first primary contest in any election is raising money. When the state controls the size of the contributions to a potential candidate, they control who runs against the incumbent.

With an election just 10 months away, the Legislature’s first order of business in the session that opens today is to rewrite and vote out a new version of a campaign finance bill that Republican Gov. Jim Douglas vetoed in May.

“I’m looking for it to be the first bill we actually move,” said Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington of Jericho. [snip]

Rule #1—Fascists do not work. From the beginning, they seek political office, raising taxes to pay for growing government larger. Since this is so exhausting, they never have enough money for campaign funds.
A product of work is money. People with money usually are self-sufficient, not prone to donating to any party of Big Taxes and do not reliably vote. (Of course, they vote, but not the fascist mindset, which makes them unreliable.)
To counter this proclivity requires strict campaign finance controls, in which the amount of money given in campaigns “equalizes” the field and promotes incumbency. Is it not any politician’ desire to stay in office where one can exercise control over the electorate?

Rule #2—All fascists are nanny staters; all nanny states elect fascists.

Understand, fascists believe no one is capable of monitoring their self well-being. From smoking to trans-fats, everyone needs the kindly guiding hand for the overseeing state.
To reach this end, they must be in power in sufficient numbers. Keeping vetoes of unpopular legislation from occurring requires total control of the legislature. The simplest method is to kill off the campaign money, a partial birth abortion to democracy.

Lawmakers tried but failed to override the governor’s veto in a special one-day session in July. The House tally came up one vote short. Now legislative leaders say they will move a new version within the first weeks of this session so new rules on campaign contributions could be in effect for the fall election. They are rushing because some candidates — including Douglas — are already raising money for their campaigns. [snip]

Gov. Douglas said the bill would have set contribution caps too low, making it hard for challengers to raise the money they would need to take on incumbents. [snip]

Rep. Christopher Pearson, P-Burlington, said he and other Progressives would be uncomfortable increasing contribution limits significantly…

“We are well on record being concerned with the impact of money in politics,” Pearson said. “I don’t think Vermont is well served having national party money pour in at the last moment.” [snip]

“I do want it to take effect in 2008,” Symington said.

Of course she does, why take a chance on losing.

Archived in: 2008 Election, Fascism, Nanny state, Progressives, Taxes, Vermont