Earlier today I responded to a post on the Club For Growth blog by David Keating which criticized the idea that contributions to politicians should be restricted to constituents only. Mr. Keating has now responded to my response by calling me "pro-speech regulation" and then questioning my conservative credentials.

To address the "pro-speech regulation" charge, let me say that limiting campaign contributions to constituents only doesn't limit political speech for American citizens any more than preventing them from voting for any candidates other than those in their district/state does. As I said before, citizens elect politicians to represent them in Congress. Not big-money interests from other parts of the country. There is absolutely no reason why a candidate or politician should be beholden to anyone other than his/her constituents.

As for my conservatism, let me say that I am every bit as conservative as Mr. Keating and his organization are (Keating is the executive director of the Club for Growth). The only difference between Keating and myself is that I'm just an average citizen and he works for a group that is engaged in throwing money at campaigns around the nation. The very thing that would be prevented should contributions be limited to constituents only.

I support the principles of the Club for Growth and the ideas the group is trying to promote, but what makes me uncomfortable is the idea that groups like the Club for Growth can often wield more influence over politicians and candidates than the constituents of those people do. I don't like it when my representatives in Congress are more beholden to big-money liberal interests than to me and my fellow citizens (and they are, believe me), so in order to be consistent I must oppose all efforts by big-money interests to influence local elections.

Now I understand that it is perfectly legal currently for politicians to take this non-constituent money, and I also understand that if many candidates didn't take the money that they wouldn't stand a chance against their opponents. So if candidates - even candidates I support - take this non-constituent money now I get that, but it doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it or that it's good for this country.

Because it isn't.