Campaign Finance Decision May Hurt Patriotic Immigration Reform
Print Friendly and PDF

Republicans are cheering the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United against the Federal Election Commission that overturned parts of the McCain Feingold Act that restricted independent corporate expenditures.

I am less optimistic.

I am a pragmatist rather than an idealist when it comes to elections and electoral law.  So no matter what the constitutional merits of the Supreme Court's decision, this could be a disaster for patriotic immigration reform.

Having worked with dozens of patriotic immigration reform candidates in Republican primaries, I can say without a doubt the biggest problem is money.  Whenever an open border candidate like Chris Cannon is seriously threatened, or if a Tancredo like candidate has a real shot, the money will come pouring in from the lobbying and corporate interests.

Because of the $2,300 cap on individual donations and ban on corporate donations, we will usually be able to stay within at least 1/3 to 1/2 as much as the open borders candidate.  We will have more total donors giving 50 or 100 contributions, but they get the big money contributors.

However, on ballot propositions like prop 200 and 202 in Arizona when there are very few campaign finance regulations, we  will be outspent at least 5 to 1, and in some cases 10 to 1.

We can still win ballot propositions with those financial gaps because the voter is just answering a question.  However money combined with the media can completely turn candidates positions on their heads and fool the voters into supporting the open borders candidate.

Print Friendly and PDF