What Would Dale Earnhart, Sr., Think? The FEC Goes after NASCAR
By Brad Smith Posted in FEC | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (14) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
How absurd is campaign finance law?
In the late summer of 2004, Kirk Shelmerdine, formerly the late Dale Earnhart's pitt boss (one of the best ever in the business) but now a very average NASCAR driver, took some unsold space on his car and put on a decal reading "Bush-Cheney '04".
Notified by a Democratic activist of this nefarious, unreported political activity, and apparently concerned about the possibility that this might corrupt the Bush Administration, the Federal Election Commission went out investigating.
Read on . . .
The FEC's findings were interesting indeed. It determined that Shelmerdine's efforts to draw attention to his under-financed team through the use of a Bush decal was not exempt under the "commercial exemption," even though Michael Moore's making a Bush-bashing movie and showing it throughout the country was entirely exempt because Moore was just trying to make a buck. The Commission's General Counsel, and at least two commissioners, determined that the value to the Bush campaign was not what Shelmerdine actually spent, or what the Bush campaign would have spent, or what anyone else would have spent to run that ad; but rather, was the value that some other person would have spent on some other occasion to run some other ad for some other product on Shelmerdine's car.
Poor Shelmerdine promised that he had nothing to do with politics and never would again - why, to read his affidavit submitted to the FEC, there's no more apolitical wastrel anywhere than Kirk Shelmerdine (We wouldn't want our government actually encouraging people to be involved in politics, would we?) - but the General Counsel still wanted to fine him. Cooler heads prevailed at the FEC, but barely - it appears only on a 3-2 vote that the Commission decided not to fine poor Shelmerdine, but merely to have the federal government "admonish" him for this act of raw, unregulated political participation.
Believe it or not, the documents - all of which can be found here - are actually worth reading, especially the Statements of Reason by Commissioner Hans von Spakovsky and by yours truly (written as the case was under investigation nearly 18 months ago). They are funny, in a dark, "good grief our government is out of control" sort of way, and demonstrate how absurd our system of campaign finance regulation has become.
Well I was going to mention his name, but I decided against it seeing someone else would do it for me.
If you want idiocy like this to expand, by all means nominate McCain.
Sounds like some administrative asshats need a life. If this kind of crap gets them all excited, that's pathetic.
Like I said here...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/troll/2006/dec/24/a_future_childlike_gop
We need to sucker the Democrats into trying to ban Nascar all together!
"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."
Or at least force them to meat strict CAFE-style mileage standards. Or barring all that, force the tracks and teams to advertise Al Gore books and DVDs for free. It's the least they can do for the planet.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You can't only blame McCain on this, we also have to blame Bush for signing this ridiculous legislation.
I thouht it was dishonest of Bush to campaign in the primaries against McCain's campaign finance reform proposals and then deciding to actually sign it into law.
The only campaign finance reform that will actually work is ensuring full transparancy of all contributions so citizens can see who is giving what to whom and let the electorate decide which politicians are for sale.
Has corruption in Washington ended since McCain-Feingold? Isn't that what we were promised?
Bush signed campaign finance because he was afraid McCain. Once the media smelled blood in the water, they began to promote McCain as the "conscience of the nation."
Bush could have shut McCain down as a national figure by vetoing his signature issue.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Are there multiple people to blame? Yes, of course. It took a whole lot more than a single person to make this bill law (and to subsequently uphold it as constitutional). Is McCain one of the biggest targets for this blame, since this is his legislation that he pushed and pushed and pushed for until he got? Absolutely. Is he done? Absolutely not. Does it disqualify him from the nomination? I think so, especially when the rest of his dubious record is taken into account.
Bush isn't running in 2008, and if it were possible, there would be a whole lot of opposition to his nomination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
McCain was upfront through the entire process on what he intended to do to political speech through campaign finance reform. Bush on the other hand said he believed any legislation banning campaign ads prior to an election was unconstitutional and promised a veto. Rather, he turned around and signed it into law in one of his many "too smart by halves" political moves that backfired on him when the Supreme Court he punted the issue to didn't bail him out.
McCain's name is on the bill and he is running for President in 2008 so he deserves to get taken to the woodshed on this one.
What about all of the leftwing political messages we get from television shows and films? Often times they seem to be ratchetted up as elections approach.
Aurelian,
That's a major reason why liberals want "campaign finance reform".
The only favorable media coverage conservatives can get is when they buy it themselves. If all the money was taken out of politics, most voters could only get their info from the Mainstream Media.
Wouldn't the Democrats love that?
What's ridiculous about regulating political content and advertising is who gets to decide what is news, free speech propaganda, etc?
Liberals and the ACLU will scream bloody murder if the government goes after someone trying to publish child pornography, but will turn a blind eye to the government regulating actual political speech, which is what the First Amendment is really about.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Screwing NASCAR is a great way to appeal to southern voters. Keep it up DNC.
Another example of campaign finance reform and the other forms of regulating political speech treating the Constitution, specifically Amendment I, as toilet paper.