The former president has always considered himself to be the ultimate disrupter. But this time, the disruption is on the other side.
Through the weekend, there were an awful lot of questions that were going back and forth from people in the presidentās tightest circle, and one of the questions that kept being asked was whetherĀ Joe BidenĀ was going to endorseĀ Kamala HarrisĀ or not. And the question didnāt revolve around whetherĀ heĀ wanted to or not, but whether people in her camp thought it would be better for her to fight for it, win it on her own, and not be seen as somebody who was tapped by President Biden and so, in her own way, have a fresh startĀ going into the campaign.
So the timing seems to be about as good as it could have been to end what has just been one of the craziest two or three weeks in American politics in quite some time.
Feels like you could go after it from a campaign finance angle, not that those laws are particularly restrictive as it stands.
I really donāt know. Weād have to pass it as a law and then see if it survives challenges. Better question is does either party have the political will to make it happen?
Campaigning is not a right. Postal employees canāt run for office, for example.
Iām really not invested enough to disagree, here. If someone can make it happen, great. I think it might not pass constitutional muster but Iām not on the Supreme Court so what I think doesnāt matter.
You could be right, who knows. But that would basically invalidate the entire Hatch Act, which would be wild. But Hatch is too restrictive in my opinion anyway.
Agreed. What about an inflation adjusted campaign budget for each elected position? I believe this system is already used in some countries.
I feel like this would promote a focus on policies/platforms and encourage good faith campaigning.
Citizens United determined that money is speech though.
I think most people agree that was a harmful decision though.
Absolutely. But you canāt un-ting that bell, not without a constitutional amendment.