Print
Comment
Rate
A Closer Look: Campaign reforms make things worse
By TERRY MAXWELL/Arizona Range News
Generally, it takes time for the unintended consequences of a law to become apparent. In the case of campaign finance reform, the ugly consequences have been immediate and truculent.
The latest reform measure, sponsored by John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and signed into law by President George W. Bush last year, promised to eliminate the supposedly evil influence of "soft money" from federal politics.
Only limited contributions could be made directly to candidates and political parties. In theory, this would reduce the influence of the affluent and special-interest groups.
The main thrust has been to pump millions of dollars into "527 organizations," so named for a section of the 1974 campaign reforms that allow independent groups to spend as much as they want to.
It is estimated that 527s controlled by Democrats have amassed more than $130 million. Republicans, who were counting on the power of incumbency to raise more money directly, have lagged far behind but now are trying to play catch up. One of the more notable groups has been the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, creators of a vindictive and highly-disputed attack on John Kerry.
Some not-for-profit foundations; including environmental groups such as the partisan League of Conservative Voters in which Teresa Heinz Kerry plays a prominent role, have stepped up their own political spending.
President Bush has called for an across-the-board agreement to end all 527 advertising. McCain and Feingold, along with several House colleagues, are sponsoring legislation for more needed reform. Furthermore, a federal judge has called on the Federal Elections Commission to rescind several alleged loopholes in the rules created to implement the reforms
But it should be kept in mind that at the end of the proposed road of reform lies some serious restrictions on one of the Bill of Rights' most important provisions -- freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder, where are the "libertarians" that were appalled by the Patriot Act when we really need them?
Instead of trying to write increasingly meaningless laws, the emphasis should stop with full and timely disclosure of the sources of the funds. The American voter is intuitive and when they know who is giving the money, they are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions as to the merit of the TV ads.
The framers of the Constitution understood that the best means of monitoring a special interest group was to allow the creation of as many special interests as possible. Hopefully, they would check each other without the need for a vast web of regulatory agencies and prosecutors. One would have to live in a fantasy world to believe that money doesn't play a crucial and major role in politics, given the role of big government in a democratic society.
If you want to reduce the flow of special interest money into the political arena, then take steps to reduce the importance and size of government. Obviously, this is only wishful thinking with the entrenched bureaucracy that exists in Washington.
To the extent that the political parties and candidates are placed on limited budgets, political debate will simply shift to questionable surrogates, such as filmmaker Michael Moore and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
At least the political parties and candidates have incentives to keep the political dialogue in bounds, less they suffer a blow to their credibility with wild allegations. Politics would still be a bruising business, but for all practical purposes that wouldn't be anything new.
The blatant abusers of fairness and decency are endangering one of America's most cherished liberties, the right to free and unfettered political dialogue, and must be periodically monitored.
(Editor's Note: Terry Maxwell can be reached by e-mail at terryMaxwell@m33access.com.)
The latest reform measure, sponsored by John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., and signed into law by President George W. Bush last year, promised to eliminate the supposedly evil influence of "soft money" from federal politics.
Only limited contributions could be made directly to candidates and political parties. In theory, this would reduce the influence of the affluent and special-interest groups.
The main thrust has been to pump millions of dollars into "527 organizations," so named for a section of the 1974 campaign reforms that allow independent groups to spend as much as they want to.
It is estimated that 527s controlled by Democrats have amassed more than $130 million. Republicans, who were counting on the power of incumbency to raise more money directly, have lagged far behind but now are trying to play catch up. One of the more notable groups has been the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, creators of a vindictive and highly-disputed attack on John Kerry.
Some not-for-profit foundations; including environmental groups such as the partisan League of Conservative Voters in which Teresa Heinz Kerry plays a prominent role, have stepped up their own political spending.
President Bush has called for an across-the-board agreement to end all 527 advertising. McCain and Feingold, along with several House colleagues, are sponsoring legislation for more needed reform. Furthermore, a federal judge has called on the Federal Elections Commission to rescind several alleged loopholes in the rules created to implement the reforms
But it should be kept in mind that at the end of the proposed road of reform lies some serious restrictions on one of the Bill of Rights' most important provisions -- freedom of speech. I sometimes wonder, where are the "libertarians" that were appalled by the Patriot Act when we really need them?
Instead of trying to write increasingly meaningless laws, the emphasis should stop with full and timely disclosure of the sources of the funds. The American voter is intuitive and when they know who is giving the money, they are fully capable of drawing their own conclusions as to the merit of the TV ads.
The framers of the Constitution understood that the best means of monitoring a special interest group was to allow the creation of as many special interests as possible. Hopefully, they would check each other without the need for a vast web of regulatory agencies and prosecutors. One would have to live in a fantasy world to believe that money doesn't play a crucial and major role in politics, given the role of big government in a democratic society.
If you want to reduce the flow of special interest money into the political arena, then take steps to reduce the importance and size of government. Obviously, this is only wishful thinking with the entrenched bureaucracy that exists in Washington.
To the extent that the political parties and candidates are placed on limited budgets, political debate will simply shift to questionable surrogates, such as filmmaker Michael Moore and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
At least the political parties and candidates have incentives to keep the political dialogue in bounds, less they suffer a blow to their credibility with wild allegations. Politics would still be a bruising business, but for all practical purposes that wouldn't be anything new.
The blatant abusers of fairness and decency are endangering one of America's most cherished liberties, the right to free and unfettered political dialogue, and must be periodically monitored.
(Editor's Note: Terry Maxwell can be reached by e-mail at terryMaxwell@m33access.com.)
 |
 |
|
| Proposition 200: Won't protect Arizona | Drinking and responsibility are not common partners |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of willcoxrangenews.com.
