[nky]

We have an example in the Kentucky 4th Congressional district with Thomas Massie getting large amounts of cash not only out of district but also out of state. Including but not limioted two super PACS aiding in his win. Should this type of out of district money be limited? Who will he be beholden to?

Here's one example http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/...ongressman

[Hoot Gibson]

No. There should be no federal regulation of campaign spending aside from requiring candidates to immediately disclose all donations.

[Granny Bear]

Hoot, would you mind sharing your rationale for this?

[Truth]

No. But the voters should be well enough informed to know that Massie got over $500,000.00 from a donor in Texas and to vote accordingly. Of course, well informed voters is an oxymoron for both parties. The simple truth is that the vast majority of voters are ignorant.

[nky]

No. But the voters should be well enough informed to know that Massie got over $500,000.00 from a donor in Texas and to vote accordingly. Of course, well informed voters is an oxymoron for both parties. The simple truth is that the vast majority of voters are ignorant.

not only was he supported by a super PAC from Texas, He received a large chuck of his campaign money from out of state. Does he speak for Kentucky? Of course I had the same issue with Sen. Rand Paul and his "grassroots" effort to win in 2010

[Truth]

not only was he supported by a super PAC from Texas, He received a large chuck of his campaign money from out of state. Does he speak for Kentucky? Of course I had the same issue with Sen. Rand Paul and his "grassroots" effort to win in 2010

I agree wholeheartedly. I voted for Webb-Edgington. However, I will now support Massie. I'd rather have Massie with all his questionmarks than the idiot Adkins who said on KET last night that he supported the policies set forth by Paul Krugman of the New York Times. With such views, Adkins is clearly to be out of touch with even most of the Democrats in our fourth district.

Fortunately, I can't see Massie losing- particularly to someone as out of touch with reality as Krugman-Adkins.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, would you mind sharing your rationale for this?

Sure. Every "campaign finance reform" bill that I can remember has achieved nothing but make it easier for incumbents to get reelected. IMO, incumbent politicians will never create campaign financing laws that will be an improvement over no regulation of contributions and full disclosure of who donated money to whom.

I want to know who is financing campaigns because it tells you who the candidates will owe favors if elected. I judge politicians by their actions and their associations but I believe that each of us has a constitutional right to support any candidate that we want to support, either through donations of money or time.

The McCain-Feingold law is a great example. If you restrict the amount of money that candidates may receive directly from donors, then incumbents will exploit loopholes that have been left in the legislation for that very purpose. Even if such legislation did not favor incumbent candidates, if it actually put the incumbent and challengers on an equal financial footing, the incumbent would still enjoy a huge advantage by virtue of name recognition. In that case, the only challengers who would have a shot at toppling an incumbent would be celebrities who already have similar name recognition.

McCain's advocacy of so-called campaign finance reform is one of the things that I hate most about him. He took quick advantage of the huge loopholes that allow candidates to benefit from tax-exempt issue advocacy groups because he was one of the primary authors of the bill. The loophole was there because incumbents wanted it there. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down key parts of that horrible piece of legislation.

[Granny Bear]

Thanks Hoot! That was very informative.