Would someone like to comment on whether the
McCain-Feingold law ought to apply to
nationally-organized minor parties?  No
nationally-organized minor party has won a
congressional election since 1948 (when Henry
Wallace's Progressive Party won two seats in New York
city, one in Feb. 1948 in the Bronx and one in
Manhatten in Nov. 1948).

The Supreme Court majority talks grandly that the law
should apply to parties with only a single member of
congress, just as it should apply to parties with a
majority in congress.  But what about parties with
zero members in Congress?

Yet the law affects the 6 minor parties that have
"national committee" status.  Now the Libertarian
Party can no longer sell ads in the Libertarian Party
News to corporations.  Now the various Libertarian
Party state units can't send checks to the national
party office (the time-honored normal process by which
the party splits dues between the state and national
parties) without elaborate reporting by the state
parties.  Now the national officers of the Libertarian
Party can't be the after-dinner fund-raising speakers
at state party conventions (unless they say, "I am
speaking in my personal capacity; and then wonders if
the party can pay for the air ticket, etc.).  It's a
nightmare and seems to have no public policy
usefulness at all.

And if it wise social policy to include the minor
parties, then how can the Commission on Presidential
Debates get away with saying the minor parties are too
inconsequential to be included in the general election
presidential debates?


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree