I’m against it. People argue about the definition of “freedom of speech” as defined in the first amendment. Is pornography? Is shouting fire in a theatre? Is the latest art exhibit? For each of these, there is some gray that’s debatable on either side.
As far as campaign financing goes, it seems pretty black and white to me. It’s political speech as defined by the founders in the bill of rights, and as understood by people today. Freedom to express your political views, whether you’re black or white, man or woman, rich or poor is about as basic a right of this country as there is.
Yes, feel free to express your views however you want. Stand on street corners, make phone calls, produce a commercial for your favorite candidate. However, don’t assume that handing Sen. Soandsuch a bag of money constitutes protected speech. Unless somebody has started “Performance Donations” and I just haven’t heard about them.
Campaign Finance reform deals primarily with “soft-money” contributions, that is unrestriced donations of money directly to a political party, which, suprise suprise is then spent on the candidate representing that party. Why is this a problem? Well to start with it circumvents a major part of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act.
(By the way, I can literally hear the next part of your argument coming, so let me head it off at the pass by noting that the FECA was reviewed by the Supreme Court in Buckly v. Valeo, 1976. The Court struck down some of the act’s limitations but ruled the remainder as constitutional.)
In 1996 the Democratic National Committee raised 122 million dollars in soft money contributions. The Republican National Committee raised 141 million. In theory, the Court’s 1996 ruling should prevent the committees from spending the moneies they recieve on advertising for their candidates. However, the parties have circumvented this with the creation of “issue ads”, (56 seconds on the biography of Bob Dole, 4 seconds on Social Security.)
Why is this even an issue? Because working schlubs like myself can’t afford to buy a 30 second spot on any major network (okay, maybe on the WB, but nobody watches that anyway.) so in essence what is happening is the further removal of any political voice from nonwealthy, nonunion American voters. Sure, the candidates are speaking for (and too) someone, but certainly not the people who can’t afford a night in the Lincoln bedroom.
Currently, the Shays-Meehan bill would limit campaign contributions to a national party in the same way that donations are ALREADY LEGALLY LIMITED to individual candidates, ban “independant” expenditure advertisers from using ANY candidates names or likeness within 60 days of the elections, and require speedier disclosure of ALL donations (including harsh penalties for violations of the law.)
the problem is any reform would be like finance before it. It would be geared towards a 2 party system in which democrats and republicans are the only ones who get any money.
Actually, Asmodean, neither the Federal Election Campaign Act nor Shays-Meehan have anything to say about the specific parties involved. Both are simply limits on contributions to any political candidate or party.
I’m guessing what you’re objecting to is the Presidential Election Campaign Fund (That little box on your tax forms that DOES NOT REDUCE YOUR RETURN IN ANY WAY {They always emphasize that part ;)} That’s the one that matches up to $250 dollars of any donation made to primary candidates.
The only issue there is that in order to qualify for the funds, the candidate needs to raise at least $5,000 in 20 states. This restriction shouldn’t be to hard for any serious presidential candidate to fulfill.