I strongly suspect we all agree pretty much on this essentially libertarian point. I just disagree with the idea that the Left has any more or less fault than the Right. Both sides have people spending money to buy favors from government, and, as you suggest — the best solution is to remove the capacity to perform favors. The Left has lots of flaws, stupidities, an cluelessness. No reason to ascribe something solely (or even largely) to them that’s not unique to them in the least.

McCain-Feingold was an egregious violation of the right of the citizenry to hear the thoughts of others.

Hooray for Justices Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia!

Human nature is what it relevant. Morganovich did a better job than I did making the point, especially the last sentence of the comment.

the real problem is that we cannot trust our elected officials to honestly and morally choose winners and losers and to adjudicate disputes with economic consequences between interests. the same guys who rail against corporate speech tend to support union speech, which is at least as suspect (and unions far outspend corporations in political donations)

nothing we ban or don’t ban in terms of speech does anything to address this. trying to stop economically interested parties from influencing government when government has a great deal of influence over them is like trying to stop drugs by making them illegal. all it does is raise prices and drive the practice underground, worsening the problem.

to the extent that government must affect economic and social outcomes, the best we can hope for is open, accurately attributed speech and donations. ban companies from doing it, and they just hire lobbyists who do it away from public scrutiny or create layers of obfuscatory organizations (like 527′s).

but far and away the best way to take influence out of government is to take influence away from government. the less say they have, the less incentive to influence them, and the cleaner the outcomes.

Ken, are you claiming that Eric’s comment is incorrect?

I think he’s telling the truth, and that the original assertion is, in fact, invalid — it wasn’t the Left’s attempts to screw things up that encouraged attempts to manipulate The Law. It is, in fact, human nature to manipulate The Law, as well as The Market, to one’s own benefit. The rules need to take that into account as much as they can, and within the eternal problem of “Quis Custodiet…”

This was one of the operating principles of the FFs, and why they tried to institute a substantially limited government. With time and great chicanery, of course, those limitations have been eroded away, and now we have the issues of a giant Federal behemoth stomping around like a bull in a china shop.

Robert Heinlein had a throwaway idea (IIRC, in Starship Troopers, possibly The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress) wherein he suggested a two-body legislative system with one body that passes laws by a two-thirds majority, and another which repeals laws by a one-third minority — the reasoning being that if 1/3rd of the people didn’t think something ought to be law, it probably ought not to be.

Understanding of the historical role of the Jury in Law Enforcement is that the 12-man jury, in fact, acts to defacto repeal any law which more than about 12% of the people disagree with in the form of Jury Nullification. It is probably general ignorance of the jury’s Right to Nullify the law which has probably allowed non-violent possession laws against drugs to remain in effect, as I suspect that well over 12% of the populace object to usage/possession laws for all but the hardest of drugs.

The fact is that there should be a system for removal repeal of laws and regulations which is easier to perform than the passage of them. The act of winnowing The Law on a consistent basis would be a very valuable social function. I’d suggest to anyone reading that, if you are ever able to provide input on The Next Society (because sooner or later this one seems likely to collapse) that you express that notion — of continual and steady repeal of all laws and regulations be easier than passage of same. Perhaps all laws should “sunset” — all of them, even “murder”, etc. (not because it’ll stick, but just to make sure there’s never any “special class” of always-enacted laws which can get relentlessly expanded, as WILL HAPPEN)

True, of course. And the NAACP is not the KKK. Let’s deprive one of the right to speak. Your choice, Kevin?

If the Left hadn’t targeted commerce with a never-ending proliferation of restrictions and wealth- confiscations, commercial enterprises probably would not see much reason to waste money on advocacy.

Demonstrably untrue. Pick up a copy of Kolko’s Triumph of Conservatism or Railroads and Regulation. When they couldn’t make cartels work, they turned to the feds to get the force of law behind their efforts to enforce discipline. Folsom differentiates in Myth of the Robber Barons between regular and political entrepreneurs, the latter being people who turn to politics to get ahead. Look at the Diane von Furstenberg-led effort to get laws to enforce design patents in fashion, or efforts to obtain property for private parties through eminent domain. The original FDA legislation was passed for the benefit of the meat-packing industry. Corn, cotton, and sugar price supports for ADM and other large corporate players? Steel tarriffs?