Strange Bedfellows @ The Sounding Board

Much Ado About Nothing?

Lately there has been much ballyhooing about the issue
of campaign finance reform. This seems especially to be a
pet project of prominent Democrats, many of whom are
helping to spearhead its latest manifestation, the Shays-
Meehan bill. However, when the public is polled as to how
important CFR is in the scope of local and national politics,
the issue barely shows in comparison to national defense
and fiscal responsibility. Why, you might ask, would the
Democrats continue to hold water for such a prospect
when they have shown time and time again that they are
not only swayed by popular public opinion, they have vir-
tually sold their souls to the opinion polling machines in
order to maintain what they perceive to be a stranglehold
on the hearts of �mainstream� America? The answer is simple: They really have absolutely nothing to lose by backing campaign finance reform. Would you like for me to explain? I thought you would never ask.

The crux of campaign finance reform is the idea that there is simply too much money in modern politics. With candidates spending millions of dollars even in local races, unions such as the AFL/CIO running advertisements using member contributions without regard to the views of said members, Bill Clinton selling last-minute pardons like a he was Washington, D.C. umbrella vendor in the middle of a rainstorm, and shady business dealings such as DNC head Terry McCauliff turning a $100,000 �investment� in the failed Global Crossing business into a miracle $18,000,000 (while at the same time excoriating Republicans for fictitious back-door deals with Enron), one can see how that idea might maintain a foothold in the hearts of the American voters. However, corruption in politics cannot be solved by simple laws, even ones as seemingly widespread as the ones currently touted by any liberal Democrat within an arm�s reach of a microphone and a television camera. The problem lies in the hearts of the people running for elected official, not in the money that they use.

Monies donated to campaigns are a form of free speech and have always been considered such. When a person or an entity gives money to either a political party or to an individual seeking public position, he or she is, by extension, stating that they are supporting the things that the party or candidate is saying, and that they are saying the things that the contributor would say if they had the opportunity. The fact that there is a current limitation on contributions is, in fact, a serious infringement on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and truly should be looked at as something to consider repealing long before we consider the merits of producing additional laws to further prohibit lawful donations. The best solution would be to have no restraints on the amount that a person or other entity can give at any time. The classic argument to this, of course, is that this would produce people who simply �buy� elections. Think, however, about the faults of this response. If all it took to be elected to a position of power was massive amounts of money, then why is it that two of the richest candidates in recent memory, Steve Forbes and Ross Perot, are sitting at home now instead of framing public policy? The simple truth is, money can buy a lot. It can provide a candidate with tons of exposure through advertising, an excellent public relations team, and even a place in nationally televised debates that they should never have even been allowed to watch from a distance. What money cannot buy, however, is the hearts and minds of the American people in the arena of issues.

Democrats are excited about campaign finance reform for one simple reason, and it is the same reason that we continue to see CFR talked about from the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings and the such on nightly and weekly news programs. Campaign finance reform takes all power that the individual has in getting their point across in a campaign and hands that power over to the major media. Democrats love this, because this would mean that major newspapers, radio, and television news broadcasts would be the only place where any issues pertinent to an election would be talked about anywhere from 30 to 60 days before an election. These markets have consistently shown their bias towards the Democrat party, and specifically the more liberal wing of that party (read Bernard Goldberg�s excellent book Bias if you don�t believe me), and would surely not change their political views to give favorable coverage to Republicans or even conservative Democrats when given the chance. Furthermore, since the major media outlets would have complete control over all political speech during that time, a candidate�s response to any unfavorable coverage would be aired at the whim of the very people that, in all actuality, were more than likely responsible for said unfavorable coverage to begin with.

What is needed is for people to practice common sense when it comes to campaigns, and to actually maintain their supposed ethics in gaining contributions. If a candidate has multiple millions in personal wealth that they are willing to spend on their own election, I say �more power to them.� The fact that they are willing to risk their own money as opposed to begging for contributions should at least say something about the strength of their convictions. If a candidate such as the newly hairy Al Gore can successfully shake down a group of Buddhist monks that have sworn a vow of poverty for tens of thousands of dollars, flying in the face of all existing campaign laws, he should be brought to trail for illegal actions. If a union member is forced by their bylaws to contribute monies, they should have a say in where their money is spent, or better yet, get rid of the unions (another subject for another day). Another law will not prevent a corrupt individual from doing unethical things during the course of a campaign any more than another gun law will prevent someone that is already planning on committing a crime from getting and using a gun illegally (that�s why they�re called criminals!). I believe that the root of the problem may not be the laws that are on the book, but the heart of the men trading their morals for money without a second thought.