News
March 31
Money is speech, especially today. For any individual, organization, or private company to convey its message across a broad spectrum of people money is a necessity. Try reaching more than a handful of people through by other means (including the Internet), and you will not succeed. With 275 million people in the United States spread over a 3,000-mile continent it is impossible to convey a message without using a media outlet which charges for its services. Hell, you cannot even do it in a state the size of Massachusetts. As with everything else in life, it takes money to run a political campaign. This money must come from somewhere. As of now, there are three choices: (1) the government can pay, (2) the media can give free time, and thus pay, or (3) private individuals, corporations, and groups can pay. Right off the bat we can dismiss option two. In the first place, why should the media allow free campaigning? It will cost them money, and it abridges their right to free speech if they are forced to publish views they don't agree with. In the last Presidential race, we had George Bush, Ralph Nader, Al Gore, and Pat Buchanan. Should The Nation have to publish Buchanan's views or the The Weekly Standard be forced to carry Gore's? Clearly not. That is why any such suggestions (and they have been made) have been met with staunch defiance by media outlets. Option number one, having the government pay for speech, is a recipe for disaster. In the first place, why should a taxpayer be forced to support the views of a candidate who he opposes? I certainly don't want to pay for Al Sharpton's political campaigns, or Buchanan's for that matter. Add to that the fact that candidates running campaigns based upon views different the government's would depend on that same government for funds and option one is simply a recipe for government-controlled speech. That leaves option three, the current option, and the subject of the campaign finance "reform" that was signed into law last week. The legislation which just passed, known as "McCain-Feingold" for its two main backers, is an affront to the first amendment, common sense, and real reform. Proponents of campaign finance reform argue that there is too much money in politics. They cite "staggering" sums, such as the 1996 federal elections totaling to $2.2 billion. Now, that sounds like a lot until you figure it out that is $8 per person in the country. In other words, the lifeblood of democracies costs the same amount as dinner for two at McDonalds. To put it in differently, Americans spend about $3.6 billion for candy during Halloween and Easter. One would hope that the governance of the country was worth the same amount as two weeks worth of America's sweet tooth. Backers of McCain-Feingold have long felt that politics is too inundated with "soft money." Soft money is money given to political parties, which may use it to help their candidates run for office. In order to combat this perceived problem, the McCain-Feingold bill (now law) contains two key provisions which make it particularly odious. The first provision (and this is taken from Common Cause's website) is that "the bill would prohibit all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted under state law to accept these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal elections, including advertising that supports or opposes a federal candidate." In other words, the national political parties aren't allowed to spend money to promote their own candidates. Given that the entire purpose of the national political parties is to promote their agendas by getting their members into office, this law eviscerates a good portion of their reason for existence. In the case of state parties, they too are prohibited from helping their own candidates get elected. Under the law, if I contribute $10 to the Republican party today, they cannot take that $10, combine it with 10,000 other contributions and buy a commercial on television supporting George Bush. Yet, if I am wealthy enough, I can spend $100,000 of my own money and outright buy an ad with no problem. Under the new law, all that a political party can do is put on a television ad that says "vote," but they cannot suggest who you should vote for or why you would want to vote in the first place. The second, and even more unconscionable provision contained in the law is the limitation of ads prior to an election. Once again, thanks to Common Cause for the summary of the legislation: "These ads skirt federal election law by avoiding the use of direct entreaties to "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate. Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications." "Electioneering communications" are defined as radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate or candidates and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This definition does not include any printed communication, direct mail, voter guides, or the Internet. Itwould also not cover issue advertising that does not identify a specific candidate or appears outside of the 30/60 day pre-election window." In other words, a corporation can run an ad saying: "vote for the candidate who believes in gun control, or legalized drugs, or a new social security plan," but the corporation cannot say which candidate supports those measures. Not only is this an outright abrogation of the First Amendment, but it defies logic. What is the point of an election where you can't ask people to vote for a particular candidate? When you get into the ballot box, you don't get "for a tax hike" and "against a tax hike." You get "Al Gore" and "George W. Bush." This law also means that General Motors cannot run a television ad supporting a candidate, even if his views would be good for the company, but the Ku Klux Klan can run an ad for or against whomever it wants, because it is a non-profit. There are a number of things about campaign finance reform which are just plain disheartening. In the first place, it is the same sorts of people who call the system corrupt now that first passed campaign finance "reform" in 1973. At that time they were under the same misguided impression that they could keep money out of politics and that it was necessarily a good thing. They have been proven wrong on both accounts. Money will always find its way into politics, by forcing it into different loopholes, we will find ourselves without true transparency, which is the best reform of all. Full disclosure would be far more effective than any of the measures now in place. Thirty years from now, I guarantee that people will criticize this new system (if it remains around) and call for even more stringent and constrictive practices. It is further disheartening that much of the justification for campaign finance reform is based upon the idea that the "appearance of corruption" rather than corruption itself is the basis for proponents. Despite the fact that there are no claims that bribes are being exchanged (at least no credible ones) on any sort of a widespread basis has meant that the mere feeling that things are corrupt has been turned into the justification. Many times people point to George W. Bush and his desire to drill for oil in Alaska as an example of the influence of money by corporations. Yet, this ignores the reality that George W. Bush has always been a big oil man. He comes from a big oil state, is a Republican, and believes that the oil companies are doing good things. Contributions to his campaigns by oil companies are not meant to buy his vote, but to help someone whom they know already feels the same way they do. That is politics, and that is how the system is supposed to work. Finally, it is disheartening that newspapers have often led the charge for campaign finance reform, devoting editorial space incessantly to the task. According to George Will, the Wasington Post editorialized once every 5.5 days last year about the need for campaign finance reform. This is rather convenient, since the Post and other papers will be exempt from McCain-Feingold, and if a corporation or organization wishes to run an ad before an election, it probably must do so through the papers. Not only does this make the papers much more important, but it means that organizations which disagree with a paper's view are forced to pay the papers in order to run their ads (which the paper can refuse to do). "Campaign finance reform" is a great phrase. It incorporates the word "reform" and who could be against that? By doing so, it masks dangers contained within the legislation. It is hard to be against "reform," but when you realize that that "reform" means the curtailing of basic liberties, the quashing of speech based merely on the appearance of impropriety, and the desire of some people to silence "special interest" (which have always made up the heart of American politics), it means that Americans will find elections less engaging, more murky, and ultimately less reformed then they are today.
