Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod took to Twitter this morning to reveal that he thinks individuals should be allowed to donate as much as they wish to politicians, provided the donations are fully disclosed.

The surprising revelation puts Axelrod in the same camp as many conservatives and libertarians, such as Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute.

In related news,  the Supreme Court announced today that it will consider the constitutionality of limits on campaign finance contributions.

  • TheAmishDude

    With one exception: Any union with a closed shop is forbidden from any political donations of any kind.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Of course you mean direct contributions without the usual Democrat launderers?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

    What will the Citizens United hand wringers have to say about this? Likely, they will say nothing at all.

    • NachoCheese (D)

      Nothing, because didn’t you know they were always for unlimited campaign contributions…that and we have always been at war with Eastasia.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002109532283 Jillane Kent

        Silly me. Such outcry would never be allowed in Oceania unless State approval was granted :)

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    Axelrod against campaign finance limits and Obama against ideological rigidity, apparently today is Opposite Day.

    • BeeKaaay

      Yeah, they forgot that April Fool’s day is over a month away.

      • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

        Every day is April Fool’s Day in the White House

  • Silenttype78

    I actually agree.
    I would love full disclosure of campaign contributions.
    Who gives to who and how much.
    No limits, full disclosure.

    • http://twitter.com/thetugboatphil TugboatPhil

      Same here. It’s the disclosures that none of the pols want.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1538376219 Stacey Holmdahl

    I think we should limit political campaigns to a really small amount like $1M period. They can only spend that amount and then limit their campaigning to debates that can be funded by the public. NO commercials, no flying to cities for photo ops, nothing but debates. THey can use the $1M for buttons, signs, etc. Their party has to pay for the convention.

    • NachoCheese (D)

      How do you reconcile this thought with the 1st Amendment right to free speech?

      Are you seriously suggesting we empower the government to suppress political speech? Do you realize how the statists would use that as a truncheon to stifle any and all criticism of Obamao?

    • Shawn Smith

      One problem with this (as with campaign finance restrictions in general) is that it presents a massive advantage to the incumbent. Everyone knows him & his record. He doesn’t have to spend as much to get his message out.

    • gensec

      Aside from 1st Amendment problems, limiting candidates’ expenditures gives a practical monopoly on campaign speech to media corporations, who’s unlimited propaganda spending already comes close to drowning out the much smaller spending by candidates and their supporters.

      Do you really want a political campaign where 99+% of what you see and hear is dictated by what ABC, Associated Press, CBS, Fox News, NBC/MSNBC, NPR, NY Times & PBS decide is what you should know about the election issues?

      • BeeKaaay

        How’s that different from how it is now? :)

  • Guest

    How come Facebook and G.E. didn’t pay any taxes last year? Maybe because they’re huge Obama supporters. Kinda like a free pass he gives people on Obamacare like the new interior secretarys company.

  • Infinite_Indeterminism

    “Campaign finance system is a mess. Limits have just created a cottage
    industry for lawyers who devise schemes to circumvent them.”

    Change the first two words to “Federal tax”, and change “Limits” to something like “Convoluted systems of clauses, exceptions and deductions” – and you actually describe the problem of the federal tax system.

    I find it somewhat surprising that Mr Axelrod has stated this, even if you read it in the original wording – but I’d like to ask him if he agrees or disagrees with my version.

  • EastValleyConservative

    Yes, but as usual unions will be off limits, and some other ridiculous runaround the law will prevent Democrats from having to disclose anything. My problem with the disclosure is that the left uses it to go after (with full force, remember Obama going after some) people and endanger them.

  • geronl

    Liberals want different rules for themselves than everyone else

  • BeeKaaay

    Oh no! He is reading from the conservative playbook.

    Wait, then who got his leftwingwacko playbook?

    Nevermind, too many RINOpublican suspects in DC….