Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
John McCain, Campaign Finance Reform, and Money in Politcs Campaign finance reform is seen as an attack on 1st ammendment rights. Is this broken system unfixable then?by World
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I cannot stand the current sytstem of lobbyists and multimillion dollar fundraising from large corporate interests which has hijacked American politics. Our politicians seem more interested in appeasing their financing base and keeping their jobs than representing the people who elected them. And its hard to really blame them. I would hope they had more scruples, but those that do probably never win an election, or go one term and out, while those who "politic" move up the ladder fastest. It's just a part of the game, right ?
Campaign finance reform started in 1971 with the Federal Election Campaign Act which attempted to limit the influence of wealth individuals and special interests by limiting contributions and mandating public disclosure of campaign finances. With so many loopholes, these regulations seem to have had little effect on maintaining the integrity of public offices.
In 2002, the McCain-Feingold act was passed, banning soft money (unlimited donations to national political parties) as well as "issue ads" sponsored by outside "independent" activist groups. These ads are targeted against one candidate's stance on an issue, but do not officially support any other candidate. 1st ammendment rights groups called foul.
Worst of all, it does not look like any of these measures are truly effective. The total price of the 2004 presidential and congressional elections was $4 billion, up from $3 billion in 2000, $2.2 billion in 1996 and $1.8 billion in 1992.
I struggle with this issue. Free speech is a quintessential right in a free society. It should be defended by all means possible. I personally don't have a huge problem with capping "soft money" donations, but I shudder at the banning of issue ads. If a representative group of individuals feels so strongly about an issue that they wish to spend their hard earned money attempting to influence voters through the media, what right does the government have to stop them. Is it really any different than going canvasing houses with slim jims? It is just another way to attempt to educate the voting public.
But something must be done, right? The "evil" corporations are winning - they appear to own the congress and seemingly get whatever they want.
One answer is to ban all monetary donations to candidates and fund them entirely through public funds, each with an even amount to allocate as they see fit. That would cut through a great deal of the corruption which currently plagues our legislation. Yes, I said corruption. This fancy term, lobbyist, seems so near to bribery, they are literally splitting hairs - and making small fortunes off our tax dollars right under our eyes. This would only work if "issue ads" and other roundabout ways of donating to a political campaign were banned, essentially limiting our right to free speech.
I suggest an alternative. We as a people need to ask more of our politicians. Honesty, integrity, a strong moral fiber. It seems so far from today's reality, its hard to imagine it. Maybe human nature's lust for power and wealth is too strong to ever overcome, but I would like to think not. This is our only chance. Search hard for candidates who seem unswayed by special interests. Find politicians who run on strong principles and vote according those principles. Look at the voting record of a politician you are thinking of supporting, don't just listen to the rhetoric they so carelessly regurgitate at televised debates. And most of all, do your homework. Do not vote for a candidate because Oprah or Rush Limbaugh, or even Chuck Norris supports them. Well maybe Chuck Norris... What allegiance do you owe them... The only alternative is to fall in the trap that John McCain did of sacrificing one of our most valuable rights to simply stem the flow of the political corruption which plagues our great nation.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of World only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. World is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
The thought of using my hard earned tax dollars to fund any political candidate is abhorant - espeically when I don't have a say to who that money goes to. Take our current election cycle - many people have donated large sums of money to Ron Paul - because of his message. To strip him of his source of income - at the same time giving the likes of Huckabee and Guilianni the same amount of money is outrageous - especially when the money comes from the taxpayers. I can think of no worse slap in the face to a true Libertarian like Ron Paul than to coerce money from the public to give to people running for office. This is the guy who wouldn't even vote for a Rosa Parks memorial...
The answer is not government control. It isn't rules and regulations. The answer is getting government out of controlling businesses. More liberty means less reason for corporations to lobby. Creating more laws means that people will just find more loopholes.
I agree with your argument, but you have to agree that the system is screwed up. Individuals outside of the "politics as usual" crowd of rank and file Democrats and Republicans have almost no chance at election. Look at all the hurdles against change faced by Ron Paul. When you let politicians accept huge donations from business, we continue to have the massive corruption which fits pork spending into virtually all legislation and favors the creation of entitlement programs like the prescription drug plan for seniors which just leads to more big government. Cant you see its a Catch 22. If you want the freedom to donate, you feed the system which takes away your right to your labor through taxes and freedoms through big government like the Patriot Act. This is the crux of why libertarianism cannot get a foothold in this country and is likely destined to remain on the back burner for a long time to come, if not forever.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
