Now, maybe I’m crazy. But I think that this talk of Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson running on repealing BCRA is politically lunatic.

In 2008, Republicans are going to be running into headwind on ethics and corruption. The VP’s Chief of Staff was just convicted of a felony. People are talking about the Attorney General resigning because of political hiring-and-firing and lying to Congress. Three Republican members of Congress either plead guilty or were convicted of crime in the 109th Congress. There are still investigations swirling over a couple of more. And a Democratic Congress is going to be investigating and making, mostly fraudulent (like their voting) hay out of this.

Rebuilding the image of the GOP is the first priority. Dealing with the spending — clearly tied to corruption. Holding ourselves to higher ethical standards, preferably by standards of behavior rather than regulation or legislation. Showing allegiance to our principles, rather than our donors.

And what would repealing BCRA actually mean at this point? By March of next year, it is very possible that the most noxious limitations will be struck down in Wisconsin RTL v FEC. That would leave the soft money limitations, some of the coordination laws (which are really the same thing), and the increase in contribution limits.

I don’t get it. This is not a winning issue for Republicans.

1 Comment » More on McCain and campaign finance · March 28, 2007 at 7:57 AM

[…] Now, I have criticized this law too. I even called the window provision that is being challenged in FEC v Wisconsin Right to Life "noxious". So I asked McCain about this provision, and here is what he said: […]

Comments are closed.