Recent events have made likely that campaign finance bill will be passed, signed by the President, and if it passes the legal challenges that will no doubt surface, the law will take effect sometime after the 2002 elections. While there has been some debate as to the fairness, and legality of the bill, the general concensus among Americians is that the bill is mostly noble, and some congressional Republicans will no doubt take a hit by voting against it. Some of these Republican members of Congress are calling the Campaign Finance Bill the armageddon of the Republican party. One should be quick to note that from their own perspective, a Republican party that lives on without them being reelected is armageddon to the Republican party they know and love. In the end, however, the bill shouldn't give either party any real political advantage that will not even out in the long run.
The bill will do some good, and our political scene will probably be changed permanately for the better. However, while it may or may not do what the politicians say it will (remove the influence of outside money), it will no doubt do things that these politicians didn't plan on. Money (from outside sources), for the most part will still be there, just in a relatively smaller way. While this may stop one or two big contributors from buying there way into policy decisions, it will also make the policians work harder for money. They may make more promises, and commitments to more groups and people, because they need to in order to raise money. This bill freeing our politicians from financial influence is not a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination. There are however, two probable results that they did not count on.
The first is the fact that our politicians will most likely become more fiscally conservative as a result. While the number of Democrats vs Republicans may not change, who runs for our offices may. One of the amendments added by the House the other day was the so-called 'millionare clause' which give a candidate the opportunity to triple the amount of money he/she can take from contributors if their opponent spends more than $350,000 on his/her own campaign. However, as we learned in recent governor races, some candidate will spend many millions of dollars on their candidacy. The governor's race in New York set all kinds of records, as well as a Democratic "venture capitalist" who spent millions to win his race. While the Courts may not strike down the current campaign finance laws based on freedom of speech protection, they would strike down any law that forbid an individual to spend his own money on his own behalf. What this sets up of course, is a new type of candidate to be recruited by the parties. That new type would be someone with the resources to fund his/her own campaign. This would make it harder for Joe Smoe off the street to run for office, and 'peoples' candidates will end of being replaced with wealthy candidate. Instead of being dominated by Attorneys and Academics, we will see more 'venture capitalist', entrepreneurs and wealthy business people in office. Obviously these types of people will be more inclined to be business friendly, and pass laws that promote business... They will also be more inclined to run the government more like a business, looking at accountablity for funding, and making real attempts to cut the fat. ... This type of politician would be the very definition of fiscally conservative in political terms.
The second is the chance that third party candidates may be able to close the gap in terms of gaining recognition. With smaller cap limits for individuals, groups, and corporations, people may be more inclined to throw money the way of other candidates. If a corporation, for example, had a budget of $250,000 to give to politicians, and suddenly find themselves only legally able to shell out half of that.... It is entirely possible that they may be more inclined to give to both the Republican, and the Libertarian Candidates. Likewise, an evironmental group may use the extra funds to give to both the Democrat and Green pary candidates..... Less money, also means more emphasis on grassroots, door to door type campaigning, which is something that most Americans probably don't take that seriously . A door to door third party candidate doesn't garner respect because we don't see the major candidates stopping by, and we don't see the third party ads on T.V.... If suddenly, we saw Republican and Democratic party candidates or workers knocking on our door and handing out a flyer, it would legitimize the flyer we got from the Independence Party last week... Without the heavy flood of the two party television advertising, other things such as debates, and interviews take more front stage presence. While third party candidates may be locked out of national debates, most local debates, and local round-table discussions include more than just the two main party candidates.... Third Parties will have a better chance to grow from the local level up, than the other way around. While a large growth of third party candidates is less than certain, this bill will do more to help than hinder those who crave another choice.
In the end, this bill 'may' never see the light of day, and may be just another 'campaign issue' for 2002. Hopefully some form of it will pass, and withstand the legal challenges in court, and the 2002 races can be determined by something more important. I personally look forward to the day when our political climate changes... whether it is for better or worse... at least it will give us a new 'truth' to debate about.... |
