Because he is pandering. It is that simple.

Five years ago Mitt Romney believed in public funding of campaigns and taxing political contributions.

Thirteen years ago he believed in outlawing political action committees. 

Ramesh Ponnuru, after studying Romney’s position on campaign finance laws concluded that, "All told, those positions place him to the left of McCain-Feingold."

Don’t believe me? Watch (H/T Caucus Cooler):

(Perhaps Romney is personally pro-campaign finance reform but publicly not?)

It is a wonder that Romney’s hair doesn’t blow in the wind while the rest of him does.

By the way, I hope that Jim Bopp and Wisconsin Right to Life prevail today.


5 Comments

ALB · April 25, 2007 at 2:45 PM

Romney: “The kinds of demands that are being placed on the economics of running a campaign suggest an increasing power on the part of monied interests. And I think it’s wrong, and we’ve got to change it.”

Hello, Pot. This is Kettle. You’re black.

Rachel · April 25, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Oh Fred, save us from these phonies!

murphy · April 26, 2007 at 1:16 PM

It’s interesting that you so completely missed the point of what Romney is talking about. Says Romney:

“The American people should be able to exercise their First Amendment rights without having to think about hiring a lawyer…In 2004, the non-profit group Wisconsin Right to Life wanted to run grassroots radio and television ads urging people in the state to contact their Senators (which the ads mentioned by name) and ask them to oppose the ongoing filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominees. A provision in McCain-Feingold, however, was used to argue that the ads were illegal. Rendering a verdict on what constitutes acceptable political speech is something for voters – not judges – to decide.”

Two of the favorite “eyeon08” candidates are McCain and Giuliani…both of whom support McCain-Feingold and oppose the First Amendment guarantee that voters may criticize their elected officials.

eye · April 27, 2007 at 11:23 AM

I agree with Romney’s point. My problem is that it is pandering. Romney spent his entire political career attacking free speech much more egregiously than McCain or Giuliani.

Now, just in time to run for President, he picks a position that has no rational link to his previous positions.

Just like he has done on abortion, immigration, taxes, Reagan, gay rights, etc.

As Rachel said, phony

eyeon08.com » Romney attacks Thompson on campaign finance · May 31, 2007 at 6:33 PM

[…] Romney attacks Thompson on campaign finance digg_url = ‘http://www.eyeon08.com/2007/05/31/romney-attacks-thompson-on-immigration/’; digg_title = ‘Romney attacks Thompson on campaign finance’; digg_bodytext = ‘Well, well, Fred Thompson gets in and flip-flopping pandering Mitt Romney drops the hammer on Thompson over campaign-finance reform. You will recall that this is the same Mitt Romney who was against public funding of campaigns in 1994, for it in 2002, and now against it. And the same one who was for radical campaign […]’; digg_skin = “compact”; digg_topic = “politics”; ( function() { var ds=typeof digg_skin==’string’?digg_skin:”; var h=80; var w=52; if(ds==’compact’) { h=18; w=120; } var u=typeof digg_url==’string’?digg_url:(typeof DIGG_URL==’string’?DIGG_URL:window.location.href); document.write(“”); } )() Well, well, Fred Thompson gets in and flip-flopping pandering Mitt Romney drops the hammer on Thompson over campaign-finance reform. You will recall that this is the same Mitt Romney who was against public funding of campaigns in 1994, for it in 2002, and now against it. And the same one who was for radical campaign finance reform, well to the left of McCain-Feingold. […]

Comments are closed.