2002 Ron Paul 5:20

1. Introduction
2. Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance


2002 Ron Paul 5:21
Reform Legislation
3. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism

2002 Ron Paul 5:22

4. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press
5. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble

2002 Ron Paul 5:23

6. Conclusion

2002 Ron Paul 5:24
I. Introduction

2002 Ron Paul 5:25
To date, the legislative debate over campaign-finance reform has focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment, neither are they resolved by citation to Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) nor by the latest Supreme Court opinion, including the one handed down on June 25, 2001 in FEC v . Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee . To the contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, at all, to regulate federal election campaigns.

2002 Ron Paul 5:26
The original Constitution did not contain the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment. Writing in Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton defended this omission, claiming that a bill of rights was not needed in a republic with a written constitution expressly enumerating the powers of government. Indeed, Hamilton observed a bill of rights attached to such a constitution might well prove dangerous because placing express limits upon the exercise of a power might give rise to the assumption that such a power had been previously granted.

2002 Ron Paul 5:27
Hamilton’s warning has proved prophetic in the case of campaign-finance reform. As the debate swirls around the impact of such reform measures on the freedom of speech and association, the question whether Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate federal election campaigns is being ignored. Yet, that question would have been hotly debated and quickly answered in America’s founding era in light of the constitutional text carefully circumscribing Congress’s authority in relation to federal elections. (See Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 4; Federalist No. 60 and Federalist No. 68, I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Sections 814-826 and II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed. 1891.)

2002 Ron Paul 5:28
Additionally, the issue of constitutional authority would have been examined, in the first instance, by Congress and the president without their being bound by previous court opinions. It had already been well established that each representative, each senator, and the president and his cabinet had a constitutional duty, independent of the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of legislation before them. As President Andrew Jackson observed, in his 1832 veto message rejecting a bill extending the charter of the Bank of the United States:

2002 Ron Paul 5:29
It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality in all its features ought to be considered as settled by precedent and by the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority...[and] the opinion of the Supreme Court...ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill...presented to them for passage...as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

2002 Ron Paul 5:30
It is in light of these principles, then, that the issue of constitutional authority to enact any campaign-finance reform bill is addressed in sections II and III below, before reaching the First Amendment issues raised by particular campaign-finance measures in sections IV and V. Furthermore, those issues are examined in light of the constitutional duty of Congress to decide for itself whether it has the constitutional authority to enact campaign-finance reform legislation and whether any such legislation violates the First Amendment, regardless of the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) and its progeny, including the high court’s most recent pronouncement on June 25, 2001.

2002 Ron Paul 5:31
II.Congress Has No Constitutional Authority to Pass Any Campaign-Finance Reform Legislation

2002 Ron Paul 5:32
According to Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress is a legislature of enumerated powers, having only those “powers herein granted.” As a legislature of enumerated powers, Congress may enact laws only for constitutionally authorized purposes. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819) (“Let the end be legitimate, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end which are not prohibited, are constitutional.”) The stated purpose of all campaign-finance reform legislation, like the Federal Election Campaign Act that it amends, is to “reform the financing of campaigns for election to Federal office,” thereby preventing the “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and “equaliz[ing] the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcomes of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) Congress has been granted no such power.

2002 Ron Paul 5:33
The threshold question concerning any campaign-finance reform bill is whether the Constitution has conferred upon Congress any authority to regulate federal election campaigns . Such authority is not found among any enumerated power conferred upon Congress. Therefore, Congress may not justify any campaign-finance reform measure on the grounds that its purpose is to reform the financing of campaigns for federal office. Thus, campaign-finance reform laws may be constitutionally justified only if enacted as a means to achieve some other purpose that is constitutionally authorized. ( McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S., 4 Wheat. 316, 1819)

2002 Ron Paul 5:34
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, presumed that the Constitution authorized Congress to regulate federal election campaigns for the purposes of “the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption” in government and of the equalization of “the relative ability of all citizens to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 1976) According to the proponents of campaign-finance reform, both then and now, Congress has power to regulate federal election campaigns because it has the general power “to regulate federal elections....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 13-14) A careful examination of the Constitution, as it is written, uncovers no such broad power, but only a carefully circumscribed one.

2002 Ron Paul 5:35
As for congressional elections, Article I, Section 4 limits Congress to the making of regulations prescribing the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.” As for the election of the president and vice president Article II, Section 1 limits Congress only to “determin[ing] the time of choosing the [presidential] electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.” (Emphasis added.) As for the place and manner of the selection of the presidential electors, and hence the president and vice president of the United States, the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution determines the place and, according to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures choose the manner by which the electors are chosen. ( Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. --, 148 L.Ed.2d 388, 2000)

2002 Ron Paul 5:36
Given these express restrictions upon congressional power over federal elections, it was not until the 1930s that Congress, with court approval, began to assume broad powers over federal elections, including the regulation of campaigns for the office of the president. ( Burroughs v. United States, 290 U.S. 534, 1934) At the time of America’s founding, and extending for a period of nearly 135 years, such was not the case.

2002 Ron Paul 5:37
As for congressional elections, Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 60, that congressional authority was “expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places , the manner of elections,” and did not, for example, extend to the qualifications of voters. Likewise, Joseph Story noted that congressional authority over federal elections was explicitly confined to regulations concerning the mechanics and integrity of the election process itself, and did not extend to the integrity of government generally or the relative power of voters. ( I Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution , Section 826, 5th ed., 1891)

2002 Ron Paul 5:38
As for presidential elections, Hamilton noted that the detailed plan set forth in the original constitution was deliberately designed to ensure that the president would not be elected according to rules promulgated by Congress, lest the president be too dependent upon that body. ( Federalist No. 68 ) Likewise, Justice Story asserted that both the original Constitution and the Twelfth Amendment immunized the “mode of election of the President and Vice-President” from congressional regulation, limiting congressional authority only to setting the “time” of the election. ( II Story’s Commentaries , Sections 1453-75, 5th ed., 1891)

2002 Ron Paul 5:39
In 1892, a unanimous Supreme Court rehearsed the history and text governing the election of the president and vice president, concluding that the manner of selection of presidential electors was “placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states” and that this “power and jurisdiction of the State” was “so framed that congressional and Federal influence might be excluded.” ( McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 34-36, 1892) (See also Bush v. Gore , supra.) Because the Constitution grants to Congress no authority to regulate the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president, it follows that Congress has no authority over presidential and vice presidential election campaigns.

2002 Ron Paul 5:40
As for congressional regulation of the campaigns of candidates for the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, four justices of the United States Supreme Court, in 1921, struck down a federal law limiting contributions and expenditures in congressional elections, observing:

2002 Ron Paul 5:41
We find no support in reason or authority for the argument that because the offices were created by the Constitution, Congress has some indefinite, undefined power over elections for Senators and Representatives not derived from [Article I] Section 4. ( Newberry v. United States , 256 U.S. 232, 249, 1921)

2002 Ron Paul 5:42
From this constitutional premise, these justices ruled that the “authority to regulate the manner of holding... [elections] gives no right to control” things that are “prerequisites to elections or [that] may affect their outcomes - voters, education, means of transportation, health, public discussion , immigration, private animosities, even the face and figure of the candidate....” ( Id., 256 U.S. at 257 [emphasis added]) Therefore, they concluded that Congress had authority only to regulate congressional elections to protect voters from fraud { Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371, 382-88 (1880)}, from intimidation { Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 660-62 (1884)} and from other acts designed to protect the integrity of the election process, as such. ( Newberry v. United States, supra, 256 U.S. at 255)

2002 Ron Paul 5:43
This was the original understanding, as set forth in the constitutional text and as stated by Hamilton and Story. Congressional regulation of political campaigns, beginning in the 1930’s, disregards the founding principle of limited federal authority. Instead, such regulation is based upon the assumption that Congress is a legislature of plenary power, rather than enumerated powers as stated in Article I, Section 1.

2002 Ron Paul 5:44
(See Burroughs v. United States, supra, 290 U.S. at 545.) Such precedents as these should be rejected, lest Congress overstep the limited authority granted to it by the sovereign people of the United States.

2002 Ron Paul 5:45
III. Campaign-Finance Reform Violates Separation of Powers and Federalism

2002 Ron Paul 5:46
Under the Constitution, Congress has no role in the manner by which the president and vice president are selected. In order to ensure the independence of the president from Congress, the electors of the president and vice president are state officers, governed exclusively by the Constitution and by state law. (See Bush v. Gore , supra.) All current campaign-finance measures, such as the Federal Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, subvert these separation of powers and federalism principles by imposing a national uniform rule governing the conduct of election campaigns for president and vice-president. They also undermine the federalism principle underpinning the limited role of Congress in the governance of elections of representatives and senators.

2002 Ron Paul 5:47
According to Article II, Section 1, the state legislatures, not Congress, determine the “manner” of the election of presidential electors who, in turn, are governed by the Twelfth Amendment as to the “manner” of the election of the president and vice president of the United States. The only constitutionally prescribed role for the Senate in that election process is to serve as an objective observer of the final count of votes cast by the presidential electors. The House also is limited to the role of an objective observer, unless on final count of the electors’ votes, no person achieves a majority of votes for president. Then, and only then, may the House intervene in the manner of electing a president, casting one vote per state until a candidate achieves a majority. As for the vice president, both houses of Congress are limited to serving as objective observers of the final tally of votes, except that the Senate plays the same role as the House if no candidate for vice president receives a majority.

2002 Ron Paul 5:48
This detailed scheme limiting the role of Congress in the manner of electing the president and the vice president of the United States was deliberately chosen by America’s founders to insulate the federal executive branch from the legislative branch in order to ensure independence of the former from the latter. As Alexander Hamilton put it in Federalist No. 68, the Constitution entrusts the selection of the president and vice president not to “any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose....” The electoral college was designed, therefore, as a buffer between the people and Congress to guard against the risk of corruption of the presidency by congressional participation in the election process.

2002 Ron Paul 5:49
Thus, the electoral college system was designed to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption of the offices of the president and the vice president. That system was set up in such a way as to deny to Congress any authority over the manner of selecting those two officers, leaving the selection process to be exclusively and absolutely determined by the legislatures of the several states. This delegation to the several state legislatures necessarily precludes Congress from imposing any uniform rule governing the election of the president and the vice president. (See McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 1892.) By continuing the regulation of presidential election campaigns as provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended in 1974, and by adding new regulations that extend to candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, all current campaign-finance reform measures subvert the constitutionally prescribed decentralized manner by which the president and vice president of the United States are selected.

2002 Ron Paul 5:50
By design and effect, such measures perpetuate the current regulations governing the selection of presidential and vice presidential electors who are, according to the Constitution, state officers, and not federal ones. ( In re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 1890) (“Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are... the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress.”); Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 224-25 (1952) (“The presidential electors exercise a federal function in balloting for President and Vice-President but they are not federal officers or agents any more than the state elector who votes for congressmen.”) Thus, all current campaign-finance reform bills violate the principles of separation of powers and federalism protecting the independence of the federal executive branch.

2002 Ron Paul 5:51
Additionally, campaign-finance regulations applied to the election of members of Congress also intrude upon the power of their electors who, like presidential electors, are state officers. According to Article I, Section 2 and the Seventeenth Amendment, the qualifications of the electors of United States representatives and senators are set by state law, not by federal law. ( In re Green, supra, 134 U.S. 379; Ray v. Blair, supra, 343 U.S. at 224-25) The Constitution did not grant to Congress any power to determine the eligibility of their electors, and thus insulated those electors from having their power reduced, or otherwise affected, by their representatives in Congress.

2002 Ron Paul 5:52
Although no current campaign-finance reform bill sets the qualifications of electors for Congress, each one does, like its predecessors, impose a uniform system of campaign rules designed to govern the power to be exercised by citizens at the voting booth. Some of the measures, like the McCain-Feingold bill passed in the Senate and Shays-Meehan bill pending before the House, extend that uniform system, exercising power over the state, district and local committees of political parties as well as the national committees of those parties. While such laws do not change state laws governing voter eligibility, as such, they do change the power exercised by those eligible voters. Indeed, one of the stated purposes of campaign reform legislation is to “equalize” the power of citizens “to affect the outcome of elections.” ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 25-26) Such a purpose, however, is illegitimate. It imposes a national uniform standard limiting the power of voters to the detriment of a constitutionally prescribed system of state diversity.

2002 Ron Paul 5:53
In his Commentaries on the Constitution , Justice Story observed that the framers deliberately chose not to impose a standard of “equality” among the voters of the several states, but rather to accommodate a “mixed system, embracing and representing and combining distinct interests, classes and opinions.” ( I Story , Commentaries on the Constitution Sections 583-84, 5th ed., 1891) More recently, in a column published in the September 5, 1999, issue of The Washington Post, columnist George Will reminded his fellow Americans that the Constitution does not authorize one federal election, but many. All current campaign-finance reform measures disregard this decentralized federal structure governing elections to Congress and to the presidency and, for that reason, are unconstitutional.

2002 Ron Paul 5:54
IV. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Freedom of Speech and the Press

2002 Ron Paul 5:55
At the heart of campaign-finance reform legislation, is the desire of Congress to eliminate even the “appearance of corruption” to the end that the people have confidence in the current system of representative government. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27, 1976) At the heart of the guarantee of the freedom of speech is the prohibition against any law designed to protect the reputation of the government to the end that the people have confidence in their current governors. As seditious libel laws protecting the reputation of the government unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech so also do campaign-finance reform laws.

2002 Ron Paul 5:56
In Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1976), the Supreme Court recognized that the contribution and other limitations imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 could not be justified on the grounds that they prevented only “the most blatant and specific attempts of those with money to influence governmental action.” Rather, the court found, that such limitations served a much broader purpose, namely, the prevention of “the appearance of corruption” to the end that “confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded....” ( Id., 424 U.S. at 27)

2002 Ron Paul 5:57
Since Buckley, the proponents of ever more stringent limits upon campaign contributions have emphasized that such laws are needed not to prevent actual government corruption, but to eliminate all appearances of such corruption. Indeed, these proponents have contended that the elimination of the appearance of corruption is compelling because, if the appearance is allowed to remain, people will lose faith in our current system of government and their confidence in their elected leaders, such faith and confidence lying at the heart of a healthy democracy.

2002 Ron Paul 5:58
This same theme has been struck by leading proponents of reform in the House of Representatives. Four years ago, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt urged the adoption of more restrictive measures “for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” even at the expense of the freedom of speech. (Gibbs, “The Wake-Up Call,” Time, p. 25, Feb. 3, 1997) Representative Gephardt has not changed his mind, continuing his adamant support of the speech-restrictive Shays-Meehan bill to this day. (Mitchell, “2 Election Bills Go to the House Floor,” The New York Times , June 29, 2001) Indeed, Senator John McCain has not changed his mind either. Having urged in 1997 the enactment of a law placing limits on public policy organizations’ political advertising in the waning days of an election campaign, and thus calling off the political “attack dogs” (NBC News, Meet the Press, Feb. 3, 1997), Senator McCain is waging an all-out war to make sure that his version of campaign-finance reform passes the House. (Shenon, “House Critics Call McCain a Bully on Campaign Bill,” The New York Times, July 9, 2001) As McCain’s Democrat colleague, Russell Feingold, put it upon the introduction of Shays-Meehan in the Senate in 1999: “The prevalence – no – the dominance of money in our system of elections and our legislature will…cause them to crumble.” (Cong. Rec. S422, 423, daily ed., Jan. 19, 1999)

2002 Ron Paul 5:59
What these advocates of campaign-finance reform really want is to protect incumbent office holders from the people. Under the guise of preserving the present governmental structure, they support campaign-finance reform measures that are nothing more than “incumbent-protection” legislation that would make entrenched politicians even less responsive to the people. (See e.g., James C. Miller, Monopoly Politics 88-101, Hoover Inst. 1999.)

2002 Ron Paul 5:60
Such contentions and consequences as these undermine the foundation of America’s constitutional republic. Our nation’s continued existence - its sovereignty - is not embodied in its current system of government or in its current elected and appointed leaders. Instead, the civil sovereignty of the nation resides in the people. To preserve popular sovereignty, the First Amendment secures to the people the freedom of speech, which, in turn, protects the people from any legislation the purpose of which is to preserve the current government and its leaders.

2002 Ron Paul 5:61
Twice in America’s history, the sovereignty of the people came under direct attack from Congress. Both times the attack came in the form of laws prohibiting “seditious libel” (writing or speaking in such a way as to bring the government into ridicule or disrepute), and thereby threatening the current system of government and its leaders. Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court put an end to seditious libel, ruling that the freedom of speech guarantees a nation in which “debate on the public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.” ( New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270, 1964)

2002 Ron Paul 5:62
Had the court applied the same standard to the Campaign Reform Act of 1971, that law, too, would have been cast into the dustbin of history. For, campaign-finance reform laws - like seditious libel laws - exist solely to protect the present government and her leaders from the people. While this goal may be permissible in England where the Parliament embodies the sovereignty of the nation, it has no place in America where, as James Madison put it in the 1800 Virginia Resolutions in opposition to the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, the “people, not the government, possess absolute sovereignty.”

2002 Ron Paul 5:63
Campaign-finance reform also constitutes a direct attack on the First Amendment freedom of the press. By giving politicians and their appointed bureaucrats the right to decide what the people can say about them in the heat of an election campaign, as McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan do with respect to issue advertising in the closing weeks of a campaign, these so-called reformers reject the very idea of a republican form of government, granting to the government “censorial power over the people,” instead of preserving the censorial power of the people over their government. (See New York Times v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S. at 275.)

2002 Ron Paul 5:64
Such intrusions into the campaign process put the government into the role of editor of campaign literature, a role that is absolutely forbidden to the government by the freedom of the press. ( Miami Herald Tribune v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258, 1974) Indeed, if the Supreme Court would apply the same principle to election-campaign literature that it has applied to election editorials and stories carried by newspapers, all campaign-finance reform legislation would be clearly unconstitutional. Not only do all campaign-finance reform measures transfer editorial control over an election campaign from the people to the government, but they also continue the unconstitutional licensing system of the Federal Election Commission established by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. In order to engage in a campaign for federal office, a candidate must register and report to the commission. Anyone who does not meet the commission’s registration and reporting rules is denied the right to participate and is subject not only to civil and criminal penalties, but to an injunction. Such a regulatory scheme strikes at the very heart of the freedom of the press which, as Sir William Blackstone wrote in 1769:



2002 Ron Paul 5:65
The liberty of the press...consists of laying...no previous restraints on publications.... Every freeman has the undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press.

2002 Ron Paul 5:66
(IV W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 151-52,1769 [emphasis added])



2002 Ron Paul 5:67
Campaign-finance reform, then, is not progressive, but reactive, turning the clock back to the days of the English Star Chamber that enforced the King’s rules governing the conduct of elections for the ostensible purpose of keeping his realm free of moral and political corruption. ( Sources of Our Liberties 130, 242, Perry, ed., American Bar Found., 1978) A free nation may only be preserved when the people have the liberty of the press to censor their own speech about the government and about candidates for governmental office, not when the government has censorship power of the people, as campaign-finance reform inevitably dictates.

2002 Ron Paul 5:68
V. Campaign-Finance Reform Abridges the Right of the People to Assemble

2002 Ron Paul 5:69
The right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to associate freely together to consult for the common good, subject only to the requirement that their association be “peaceable.” Any law that is not designed to keep the physical peace of the community is, therefore, unconstitutional. No campaign-finance reform measure has ever been designed to keep the “physical peace”; rather, each is designed to keep the “political peace;” a constitutionally impermissible goal abridging the right of the people to assemble.

2002 Ron Paul 5:70
Since Watergate, Congress has been scrambling to “purify” the political process in order to restore public confidence in the federal government. Campaign-finance reform has been one of the centerpieces of this purification effort. Two central goals have dominated this reform effort: (1) to limit the amounts that any one person or entity may contribute to an election campaign; (2) to force disclosure of the identity of those contributors. Both of these aims violate the First Amendment right of the people to assemble.

2002 Ron Paul 5:71
At the heart of the right of the people to assemble is the right of the people to choose how they are going to associate with one another “for the ‘common advancement of political beliefs.’” ( Democratic Party v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107, 121-22, 1981) This right extends to associations of people for the purpose of electing persons to federal office who share those political beliefs. ( Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 57, 1976) Indeed, as Justice Clarence Thomas recently observed: “Political associations allow citizens to pool their resources and make their advocacy more effective and such efforts are fully protected by the First Amendment.” ( Colo. Rep. Fed. Camp. Comm. v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604, 135 Led2d 795, 818, 1996, Thomas, J., concurring in the judgment and dissenting)

2002 Ron Paul 5:72
Had the Supreme Court applied this principle consistently in its review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, it would have held that the individual contribution limits of that act violated the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association. As Justice Thomas has pointed out: “If an individual is limited in the amount of resources he can contribute to...a pool, he is certainly limited in his ability to associate for the purposes of effective advocacy.” ( Id., 135 L.Ed.2d at 819) Instead, the court has attempted to distinguish between “issue advocacy” - where the right of the people to associate must remain unfettered - and “express advocacy” for or against individual candidates - where the right of the people to associate may be limited.

2002 Ron Paul 5:73
Both McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan exploit this distinction in their attempt to muzzle political advertisements in the final weeks of an election campaign, claiming that issue advocacy becomes express candidate advocacy when conducted during the crucial weeks before election day. In so doing, both bills seriously undermine the people’s right to choose for themselves how they will associate to advance or defeat certain measures or to promote specific principles of public policy. Constraining the people who speak out on the issues in conjunction with an election campaign may make for a more “orderly” political process, but people are not horses or mules to be hooked up to the political bandwagons of government-subsidized incumbent politicians. Additionally, limits on so-called “soft money” to political parties are really designed to place incumbent office holders in control of the political parties whose name they sport. By placing controls on how political parties may raise and spend money, “independent” politicians like John McCain seek to transmute America’s political parties into political eunuchs, impotent to affect the outcome of any election.

2002 Ron Paul 5:74
Compounding these intrusions upon the people’s right to choose how and with whom they will associate to advance their political agenda, all campaign-finance reform measures depend upon forced disclosure of the names and addresses of even the smallest contributor to an election campaign. Such required public disclosure hearkens back to the days when the English monarchy required the publication of the names and addresses of all printers of all publications circulated throughout the realm. Requiring disclosure of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns departs from an American tradition and practice that dates back to the founding of the nation and from a long line of cases affording constitutional protection of anonymity in associative relationships. ( McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334, 1995; NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 1958) Forced divulgence of the names of contributors to federal election campaigns exposes people not only to retaliation by employers and union leaders, whose political choices are not the same as their employees and their members, but it also exposes people who support challengers to the inevitable cold shoulder of a re-elected incumbent. ( Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. at 237, Burger, C.J., dissenting)

2002 Ron Paul 5:75
Keeping the political peace, as campaign-finance reform is designed to do, exacts a high price, costing the people their precious liberty of choosing how much energy and resources they wish to devote to politics. While full freedom of association, including anonymity, risks corruption of the political process, nothing is more corrosive of that process than placing election campaigns in the discretionary hands of unelected bureaucrats. (Miller, Monopoly Politics 95-100, 1999)

2002 Ron Paul 5:76
VI. Conclusion

2002 Ron Paul 5:77
Campaign-finance reform is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Promising reform, it hides incumbent perquisites. Promising competition, it favors monopoly. Promising integrity, it fosters corruption. Real campaign-finance reform calls for a return to America’s original constitutional principles of limited and decentralized governmental power, thereby preserving the power of the people.

2002 Ron Paul 34:5
“We have hundreds of temporary duty personnel in Colombia on any given day, in addition to our agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), military advisors, contractors, and embassy personnel. If U.S. presence expands to help Colombia fight terrorism as well, these alarming IRA explosives tactics could be used directly and intentionally against American facilities and employees.”

2002 Ron Paul 56:2
1. Is it not true that the reason we did not bomb the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War was because we knew they could retaliate?

2002 Ron Paul 56:3
2. Is it not also true that we are willing to bomb Iraq now because we know it cannot retaliate- which just confirms that there is no real threat ?

2002 Ron Paul 56:4
3. Is it not true that those who argue that even with inspections we cannot be sure that Hussein might be hiding weapons, at the same time imply that we can be more sure that weapons exist in the absence of inspections?

2002 Ron Paul 56:5
4. Is it not true that the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency was able to complete its yearly verification mission to Iraq just this year with Iraqi cooperation?

2002 Ron Paul 56:6
5. Is it not true that the intelligence community has been unable to develop a case tying Iraq to global terrorism at all, much less the attacks on the United States last year? Does anyone remember that 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and that none came from Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:7
6. Was former CIA counter-terrorism chief Vincent Cannistraro wrong when he recently said there is no confirmed evidence of Iraq’s links to terrorism?

2002 Ron Paul 56:8
7. Is it not true that the CIA has concluded there is no evidence that a Prague meeting between 9/11 hijacker Atta and Iraqi intelligence took place?

2002 Ron Paul 56:9
8. Is it not true that northern Iraq, where the administration claimed al-Qaeda were hiding out, is in the control of our “allies,” the Kurds?

2002 Ron Paul 56:10
9. Is it not true that the vast majority of al-Qaeda leaders who escaped appear to have safely made their way to Pakistan, another of our so-called allies?

2002 Ron Paul 56:11
10. Has anyone noticed that Afghanistan is rapidly sinking into total chaos, with bombings and assassinations becoming daily occurrences; and that according to a recent UN report the al-Qaeda “is, by all accounts, alive and well and poised to strike again, how, when, and where it chooses”?

2002 Ron Paul 56:12
11. Why are we taking precious military and intelligence resources away from tracking down those who did attack the United States- and who may again attack the United States- and using them to invade countries that have not attacked the United States?

2002 Ron Paul 56:13
12. Would an attack on Iraq not just confirm the Arab world’s worst suspicions about the US, and isn’t this what bin Laden wanted?

2002 Ron Paul 56:14
13. How can Hussein be compared to Hitler when he has no navy or air force, and now has an army 1/5 the size of twelve years ago, which even then proved totally inept at defending the country?

2002 Ron Paul 56:15
14. Is it not true that the constitutional power to declare war is exclusively that of the Congress? Should presidents, contrary to the Constitution, allow Congress to concur only when pressured by public opinion? Are presidents permitted to rely on the UN for permission to go to war?

2002 Ron Paul 56:16
15. Are you aware of a Pentagon report studying charges that thousands of Kurds in one village were gassed by the Iraqis, which found no conclusive evidence that Iraq was responsible, that Iran occupied the very city involved, and that evidence indicated the type of gas used was more likely controlled by Iran not Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:17
16. Is it not true that anywhere between 100,000 and 300,000 US soldiers have suffered from Persian Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War, and that thousands may have died?

2002 Ron Paul 56:18
17. Are we prepared for possibly thousands of American casualties in a war against a country that does not have the capacity to attack the United States?

2002 Ron Paul 56:19
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to “build democracy” there?

2002 Ron Paul 56:20
19. Iraq’s alleged violations of UN resolutions are given as reason to initiate an attack, yet is it not true that hundreds of UN Resolutions have been ignored by various countries without penalty?

2002 Ron Paul 56:21
20. Did former President Bush not cite the UN Resolution of 1990 as the reason he could not march into Baghdad, while supporters of a new attack assert that it is the very reason we can march into Baghdad?

2002 Ron Paul 56:22
21. Is it not true that, contrary to current claims, the no-fly zones were set up by Britain and the United States without specific approval from the United Nations?

2002 Ron Paul 56:23
22. If we claim membership in the international community and conform to its rules only when it pleases us, does this not serve to undermine our position, directing animosity toward us by both friend and foe?

2002 Ron Paul 56:24
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?

2002 Ron Paul 56:25
24. Are you familiar with the 1994 Senate Hearings that revealed the U.S. knowingly supplied chemical and biological materials to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and as late as 1992- including after the alleged Iraqi gas attack on a Kurdish village?

2002 Ron Paul 56:26
25. Did we not assist Saddam Hussein’s rise to power by supporting and encouraging his invasion of Iran? Is it honest to criticize Saddam now for his invasion of Iran, which at the time we actively supported?

2002 Ron Paul 56:27
26. Is it not true that preventive war is synonymous with an act of aggression, and has never been considered a moral or legitimate US policy?

2002 Ron Paul 56:28
27. Why do the oil company executives strongly support this war if oil is not the real reason we plan to take over Iraq?

2002 Ron Paul 56:29
28. Why is it that those who never wore a uniform and are confident that they won’t have to personally fight this war are more anxious for this war than our generals?

2002 Ron Paul 56:30
29. What is the moral argument for attacking a nation that has not initiated aggression against us, and could not if it wanted?

2002 Ron Paul 56:31
30. Where does the Constitution grant us permission to wage war for any reason other than self-defense?

2002 Ron Paul 56:32
31. Is it not true that a war against Iraq rejects the sentiments of the time-honored Treaty of Westphalia, nearly 400 years ago, that countries should never go into another for the purpose of regime change?

2002 Ron Paul 56:33
32. Is it not true that the more civilized a society is, the less likely disagreements will be settled by war?

2002 Ron Paul 56:34
33. Is it not true that since World War II Congress has not declared war and- not coincidentally- we have not since then had a clear-cut victory?

2002 Ron Paul 56:35
34. Is it not true that Pakistan, especially through its intelligence services, was an active supporter and key organizer of the Taliban?

2002 Ron Paul 56:36
35. Why don’t those who want war bring a formal declaration of war resolution to the floor of Congress?