Posted on 12/17/2003 8:37:45 AM PST by neverdem
The reason that backers of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill are likely to be disappointed in its results can be found right at the start of the majority opinion last week upholding the law. Quoting the 1896 words of that icon of the Progressive era, Elihu Root, Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor, the authors of the 5-4 majority opinion, said the new law is designed "to purge national politics of what was conceived to be the pernicious influence of 'big money' campaign contributions."
As the Brookings Institution's Thomas E. Mann, a supporter of McCain-Feingold, said at a Brookings forum on the court decision, "Ordinary citizens think we'll just solve all this [special interest influence] by getting money out." Many legislators advocating for McCain-Feingold suggested that there should be less money in politics and claimed the law would do that. But Mann, who worked closely with Sens. John McCain and Russ Feingold, knows better. The sponsors, he said, "were not intending to reduce the amount of money in politics. Politics costs a lot of money."
That is the reality, and the practical effect of McCain-Feingold is likely to be, as Mann says, to "rearrange the flows" of money, not to reduce it. You can see that effect already, because parties and candidates have been operating under the terms of McCain-Feingold for the past 13 months while the legal challenge was being heard.
In this new "golden era," President Bush is on his way to breaking the all-time record by raising almost $200 million for his preconvention campaign, while two Democrats for the first time have rejected the public financing system that limits spending for the nomination. Meanwhile, millionaires such as George Soros and major interest groups are pouring money into supposedly independent political organizations, which will replace party "soft money" spending on voter registration and turnout programs.
The question, then, is whether the limited purifying effects are worth the restrictions on political activity embodied in the act, or whether Justice Antonin Scalia is right in contending that "the juice is not worth the squeeze."
Unlike Scalia and the other dissenters, I think the court got it right in upholding the ban on the unlimited, frequently six-figure "soft money" contributions to the parties from business, labor and wealthy individuals. Corporations and unions have been barred from contributing to federal candidates for decades, and the courts have long sustained the constitutionality of limits on the size of individual contributions. The "soft money" loophole was created by administrative action and was then ruthlessly exploited by both political parties. Shutting it down was an overdue step.
Far more troubling are the law's restrictions on broadcast advertising about federal candidates in the period leading up to a primary or general election. Such ads -- "Tell Senator Jones he's wrong on this issue" -- are indistinguishable in effect or intent from ads saying, "Vote against Senator Jones," the court ruled. So it upheld the new restrictions, saying that groups of any sort that buy them must adhere to the same limits on contributions and disclosure requirements as parties and candidates.
Such independent ads are a pain to the candidates -- a wild card in their election campaigns. But I must agree with Scalia that the restrictions Congress has placed on them are a boon to incumbents and a limitation on core First Amendment rights of speech and association. If I join the National Rifle Association or the Friends of the Earth and find that they cannot use my annual dues to say in a TV spot that Representative Smith has been voting against our interests, but first must solicit me for a PAC contribution, my rights have been restricted.
Journalists and others who depend on the First Amendment have reason to question the cost of this reform victory.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1040281/posts
Send him an email telling him that you will tell your representative to support his bill, or that you will work against your representative as an enemy of free speech at the following email address:
gingrey.ga@mail.house.gov
I guess the "juice was worth the squeeze", now we have the Incumbent Protection Act which destroys free speech.
When a candidate's supporters (committee persons, financiers, etc.) get sued for slander or libel, it will curb the mud-slinging.
And when financial aid is given to someone, it should be directly revealed,so at least the public knows WHO OWNS THEIR CANDIDATE!
Currently, the laws make it so major donors can be obscured, and illegal (foreign, for instance) funding can be done in legal ways.
Sure, the will be ways to skirt the issue. The problem is that Congress, the President and the Supreme Court in essence just told the American people that "free speech" doesn't include political speech - the very speech supposedly protected. That might not have been the purpose, but that is the result. Come the next election cycle, Incumbents/Congress will simply attempt to restrict our rights further and further to stifle dissent.
With all due respect sir, I'm quite aware that the issue can be skirted, but the dissents by Justices Scalia and Thomas don't consider it to be propoganda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.