# COuld Campaign Reform = Permanent Incumbents? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 23, 2001, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212 "2001-03-23T20:57:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2001, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212/41 "2001-03-30T17:16:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > Sua, I agree that access to government is unequally distributed. Wouldn’t it be better to add access for the under-represented rather than take access away from the over-represented? > > - This assumes access is an infinite resource. Congressmen and their top aides don’t have all the time in the world to meet those who want to present their views to them. Triage is necessary; when the criterion is how much money someone gave to the campaign, the criterion is the wrong one.\* > > Following are some arguments against CFR: > > 1. The media have much more power than a citizen. who donates a few thousand dollars of hard money or even a lobby that donates $100,000 of soft money. Consider the impact of favorable or unfavorable treatment by the NY Times or CBS News. Nobody would dream of reducing the media’s free speech rights. Should Rush Limbaugh become even more powerful? > _With obvious exceptions, such as communications laws, the media and Rush Limbaugh don’t have vested financial interests in seeing particular laws passed._ > > 2. Dishonest politicians will have a bigger advantage over honest ones. Those who receive donations prohibited by current campaign finance laws won’t obey the new laws either. > _And hopefully they will be caught. By this argument, laws against rape should be repealed because most perpetrators aren’t caught._ > > 3. CFR may not even be needed. A recent study by Yale scholar John R. Lott showed that although campaign contributions and voting records often go together, this relationship reflects the fact that donors only support candidates whose views they share. In particular, he discovered that retiring politicians, who don’t need to please their contributors, do not change their voting patterns. > > [http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott033001.shtml](http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lott033001.shtml) > _I will think more about your argument on voting patterns. Your claim that donors only support candidates whose views they share is defeated by the fact that a large percentage of donors give to both parties. This shows that they are not advocating a position, but rather paying for access_ > > 1. Candidate cannot be barred from spending their own money. The very rich ones like John Corzine and Michael Huffington will be a a huge advantage. Do we want to be ruled by the billionaires? Would a system that favors extremely rich candidates really provide more power for the poor? > > - Very true - however, the same situation already exists - Corzine and Huffington were able to hugely outspend their opponents under the current system. The fact that Huffington lost just shows what an idiot he is (I consider Corzine to be very bright - just a bit of a loon).\* > > 1. It’s inevitable that Congress will write “campaign finance” laws that protect incumbants and protect the two major parties. A blatant example of self-protection is the Senate’s provision to allow a candidate higher spending limits if his opponent is spending a lot of his own money. This protection applies to senators, but not to representatives. > _As with the point above, this situation already exists. The fact that some things will not change is not an argument against changing what we can. The best should not be an enemy of the good._ > > 2. It’s un-Constitutional to restrict anyone’s speech, especially political speech. Even if CFR worked, our rights are more important. > _Simply untrue. No constitutional right is an absolute one. The 1st Amendment has major restrictions already - obscenity laws, time, place and manner restrictions, fighting words, etc. The reason for the restrictions on constitutional rights is so that you, in the exercise of your rights, do not trample on the rights of others. The unlimited right to donate money would trample on the right of others to have representational government._ > Sua > > \*\* ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2001, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212/42 "2001-03-30T19:03:27Z")
Regarding Henry Luce, I think that his reaction to the current political perspective at Time magazine would likely be to spin in his grave (a good thing, since it would aerate the soil).😉 My very limited exposure to Time in recent years suggests it spins news from at least a mildly left-wing world view; however I’m not in the best position to judge, since I avoid it as a desperately trend-seeking, palpitating pile of poop, much like Newsweek, the rag that used to brag about separating fact from opinion. To address other points about wealth, political ideology and zeal for campaign reform, I’d argue that politicians across the political spectrum see campaign finance reform as a threat to free speech, basically because they’re so used to talking with their mouths full. And it’s easy for some wealthy liberals to be “generous” on social policy because they know that their wealth and power will insulate them and their families from the effects. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2001, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212/43 "2001-03-30T19:47:15Z")
Sua – Your responses all look reasonable in principle. I suppose the real debate should involve the magnitudes. In particular, on #6, to prohibit individuals or their organizaitons from running political ads within 60 days of an election would be a major, major infringement of free speech, in my opinion. My F of S is just as important as the media’s F of S. This provision is just as ridiculous as prohibiting newspapers from running political editorials within 60 days of an election! That’s the exact period when we SHOULD be sharing our opinions! Ultimately, the argument for CFR is that the current system is not totally fair and that some rich or powerful groups get advantages. I agree. The argument against CFR is that a new law won’t fix the problem, but it will reduce civil liberties. In particular, note that today’s system was yesterday’s “campaign reform,” when the Democrats enacted it 20 or 30 years ago. That reform didn’t work. Special interests found legal, semi-legal and illegal ways to get money to politicians. We still have a flawed system, but the various regulations have made it more difficult for a political amateur to mount a campaign. If the Senate version of M-F becomes law, I expect that special interests will again have their way, but we citizens will experience a permanent reduction of freedom of speech. In truth, I am horrified that a majority of Senators voted for this bill. No doubt they expect the Supreme Court to overrule the worst aspects. But, each Senator took a vow to uphold the Constitution. IMHO they ignored their oath. Whether or not this bill passes, we now know that Freedom of Speech has lost support in America. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2001, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212/44 "2001-03-30T20:15:49Z")
**December** - I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I think both of us have put out pretty good arguments for our sides, and I doubt either of us is going to budge. It’s been fun, though. One final point - you are absolutely correct concerning the political ads ban. That this amendment was passed, as in other cases were blatantly unconstitutional laws were enacted by Congress, is truly a disgrace. The courts will eliminate the ban, but that is not their appropriate job - Congress should not be passing laws, and relying upon the Supremes to do the right thing, just to score points. Sua [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-campaign-reform-permanent-incumbents/59212.md?page=2)