Posted on 08/25/2004 4:04:33 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
One change voters may have noticed in this year's political campaigns shows up in commercials paid for by candidates. Toward the end of a TV or radio spot, the candidate comes on to identify himself and say, "I approved this message."
That development is one of the intended results of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill of 2002. The "stand by your ad" provision makes these declarations mandatory. The idea was to discourage nasty attack ads by forcing candidates to personally endorse everything said on their behalf, making them more accountable for the messages put out by their campaigns and improving the tone of our elections.
So why has this year's presidential campaign come to resemble a mud fight on a pig farm? Mainly because of the law's unintended effects. The same "reforms" that were supposed to clean up the political funding system and encourage more positive messages have helped produce a campaign notable for its bitter acrimony and often dubious allegations.
Most of the negative ads are not coming from the official campaigns but from independent political groups whose primary function is to inflict damage on one candidate or the other. These first got attention when a liberal organization called MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad on the Super Bowl telecast criticizing President Bush, only to be turned away by CBS. The Web site of another liberal group, Americans Coming Together, features actor Will Ferrell portraying the president as a clueless klutz.
Lately conservatives have gotten into the game through Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which says John Kerry lied about his military service and defamed his fellow Vietnam veterans as an antiwar activist.
Last week, Kerry said the president was using this group "to do his dirty work," while demanding that Bush repudiate them. On Monday, the president responded by calling on all outside groups to cease and desist, while urging Kerry to join his request. But as long as these groups think they are helping their side in the campaign, they're not likely to stop, and the candidates can't make them - because they don't control them, and under the law, can't control them.
Negative ads have been around for a long time, but they got a big boost from the new campaign finance law, which imposed strict controls on political contributions and spending. Unregulated "soft money" that can no longer be given to political parties has naturally flowed toward the channels that are still open, which include independent groups known as 527 organizations (for the section of the tax code that governs them). These committees can criticize a candidate as much as they want - as long as they don't urge anyone to vote for his opponent. It's an invitation to take the low road.
None of this comes as a great surprise, since every attempt to cleanse politics of money has created more problems than it has solved. Die-hard defenders of McCain-Feingold say the solution is stronger enforcement by the Federal Election Commission. In fact, the law's consequences suggest that what our campaigns need is not more regulation, but less.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have produced the truth.
I love the stench of media hypocrisy in the morning.
Bump!
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.