Nonprofit, independent journalism. Supported by readers.


KSTP’s Hubbard doesn’t like Clinton’s plan to limit secret big-money campaign funding

In an article about rich folks’ take on Hillary Clinton’s pledge to limit big-money contributions, Hubbard is on the nay side, saying it would limit free speech.

Count KSTP’s Stanley Hubbard on the “nay” side in a look at how billionaires view Hillary Clinton’s proposal to limit secret, big-money campaign contributions.

The Hill described her idea as a plan to “change laws to restrict the influence of secret, unaccountable money in presidential and congressional campaigns.”

It would require “more timely and complete disclosure of individual and corporate donations, introducing a publicly financed “donor-matching” system to encourage less wealthy people to make smaller donations and overturning the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which set the stage for unlimited money in U.S. elections.”

The Hill found some billionaires in favor, including Hollywood producer Jeffrey Katzenberg and billionaire California investor Marc Nathanson.

Article continues after advertisement

But not Hubbard, a big donor to Scott Walker’s campaign. Hubbard told The Hill that he was “incensed” by her proposal and that she “obviously doesn’t believe in free speech unless it’s her free speech.”

Hubbard, described as a “Minnesota broadcasting billionaire,” said: 

“We live in a country where you can talk on the phone, send emails and spend your money on free speech. Any attempt to hinder free speech, I will do whatever I can” to fight against it.

And, according to the Hill, Hubbard said Clinton’s public financing proposal would force taxpayers to spend money they didn’t want to spend on political campaigns.