Babka
Jim Babka on Oct 31st 2007
Jim Babka is the President of the Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc. He is also the host of The Downsize DC Conference Call on the Genesis Communication Network and a commentator for the Free Market News Network. He has authored several reports including: “How to Persuade Your Friends & Family Guns Save Lives & Reduce Crime,” “How the FDA Helped Kill My Dad,” and “Liberty for citizens, or only for politicians?”
Previously, Jim Babka was President of RealCampaignReform.org, which took a lawsuit challenging the campaign finance laws all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He and his wife Susie are the proud, home-schooling parents of three children, and they reside in Northeast Ohio where he teaches a Sunday School class and follows the Cleveland Browns like a rabid Dawg.
Proud Downsize DC financial supporter. Thanks for all the good work.
Jim, I have a question related to your campaign finance reform expertise: The supreme court case against McCain-Finegold was a mixed decision. It does appear that the ability to spend money to promote a candidate for elected office is a form of free speech, although it does seem debatable to equate writing a check to talking out loud. However, the issue has come to revolve around three points: Can government limit the amount that is spent, the amount that is given, or the source ? These require technical Constitutional interpretations that could arguably go either way. At the national level, all attempts at reform have been designed so full of loopholes that they merely create new devious ways to circumvent the law. But, as in the case or welfare reform, some progress is being made at the state level. Iowa, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas prohibit labor unions, regulated industries and associations from contributing to candidates’ campaigns. This has the desired practical effect of reducing the influence of special interest groups that have a clear agenda-driven reason for their contributions. Throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights the intent of the Founders was clear : -to exalt the rights and freedom of individuals. The whole idea of a democratic republic is that the individual citizen is paramount; the government exists at his pleasure; and that the elected representatives are put into their office solely to represent the best interests of the citizenry. It is also true that the collective choices of a people–the “wisdom of crowds”–is only possible when every individual acts independently based on his or her own judgment. Accordingly, I suggest that the free speech righ belongs only to individuals. Democratic voting rights are meant to be extended only to individuals–we don’t let General Motors vote–so all corporate organizations should be removed from the process.