Dems

It’s quite difficult to have any discussion on campaign finance reform without first putting it in the context the upcoming election.

We can expect to hear republicans attacking Kerry and accusing him of breaking the law. This is to be expected. The Republicans have grown accustomed to inciting fear and spreading blatant mistruths in the search of political gain.

The GOP will undoubtedly accuse the Kerry campaign of coordinating with groups such as the MoveOn Political Action Committee – which would be illegal under current campaign finance laws. There has been no such coordination between the Kerry campaign and any such PAC. Republicans charge that democratic leaning groups such as MoveOn are illegal, yet the Republican Party somehow manages to forget that there are dozens of Republican and anti-Kerry political action campaigns as well.

The ironic thing about this current debate is that the Republicans are accusing Kerry of breaking the same law they fought so hard against. Back then, the Republicans even took the law to the Supreme Court. Sen. John McCain and Sen. Russell Feingold worked for years to introduce campaign finance reform.

They were consistently defeated by the majority Republicans. In 1997, for example, all 45 democratic senators voted in favor of campaign finance reform while only a miniscule number of Republicans supported it. Trent Lott, the Republican Senate Majority Leader at the time, famously proclaimed that “campaign finance reform is not going to pass this year.” Democrats kept up the fight for several years until the law was finally passed. Upon the law’s passage, the Republican Party had an army of lawyers ready to challenge it in the courts. They claimed that finance reform was unconstitutional. Unfortunately for GOP lawyers, the Supreme Court did not agree and deemed that the law, which the Democratic Party backed, was completely constitutional.

Another truth in this matter is that the campaign finance reform bill hurt Democrats much more than it hurt the Republicans. Nevertheless, Democrats still voted in favor of it.

Labor, the bread and butter of the Democratic Party, was prohibited from giving soft money donations. Democrats have always been traditionally weary of the effects of big money on politics – even if that big money benefited them.

So what are the Democratic and Republican stances on campaign finance? Democrats have always been for campaign finance. Democrats respect the McCain-Feingold law completely. When they aren’t spending time arguing against campaign finance reform in the courts, the Republicans spend their time attacking Kerry and slandering legitimate Democratic PACs such as MoveOn.

Let us not forget two key facts: first, if it were not for the Democrats, there would be no such law banning soft money. Second, Republicans have dozens of their own political campaigns. Want more of the truth? Show up to the next Young Democrats meeting at 6 p. m. next Wednesday in Jazzman’s CafCB).

GOP

Let us suppose that you become truly inspired by a candidate and wish to support his/her campaign as much as you can.

In an effort to make your voice heard, you opt to take out an ad in the local paper, paid for with your own money, to support your candidate. The ad reaches thousands of people, thus accomplishing your goal. It upholds your right to free speech, and reaffirms all that is good in American politics.

Here in America we are allowed to voice our political opinions! Well, we used to be allowed to do so. A person actually did this during presidential elections a few years back. If he had done the same thing today, he would face huge fines and possibly even jail time. How can this be?

We can thank the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.

In some strangely motivated effort to “reform” the campaign finance system, Sen. McCain and Sen. Feingold fought hard for the adoption of a bill that would curb the political campaign contributions of Americans. Through the enactment of all sorts of convoluted requirements and restrictions, the McCain-Feingold law has limited our ability to support political candidates. Thusly, it has limited our free speech.

Is there a greater goal for free speech than the ability to speak out about presidential candidates? How can they say that this law is protecting our freedom when it is actually restricting our ability to voice our own opinions?

They claim that this legislation is for our own protection. It is designed to make it harder for false claims about political candidates to be put in the media. But isn’t it up to every American to decide what is correct or incorrect? In addition, if you notice something wrong with an ad, what are you supposed to do about it? You used to be able to run your own ad or contribute more to a campaign so that they could run counter-ads. But today that is no longer an option.

Campaign reform has restricted our liberties as individuals. It has also done practically nothing to prevent misinformation from reaching the media – misinformation simply takes a different route. It is now the job of groups such as the MoveOn PAC (instead of Joe down the street) to run advertisements against President Bush that attempt to tie him to the Nazi Party. If anything, this legislation has made our problems worse. Who, in your opinion, has more credibility? An organization such as MoveOn with millions of dollars, thousands of followers, and resources galore, or Joe down the street, who probably mows the lawn naked? If Joe can sway the opinion an American citizen, then imagine what MoveOn can do!

The establishment of campaign finance reform is an attempt by those in high positions in American government to protect themselves from losing their offices by limiting the Americans’ ability to criticize them. It is an affront to American free speech and to our political system. If it were truly an attempt to provide accurate information to Americans, then why is news media the only industry not regulated by its restrictions? Section 431(9)(B)(i) of the campaign finance law wholly exempts “any news story, commentary or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication” from the definition of campaign expenditure. If McCain and Feingold truly wanted reform, then they should have started with the propaganda distributed through our “news” sources every day.

Of course, now you can see why the media loves campaign finance reform.

This law is yet another example of the Republican Party standing up for your rights while the Democrats strip them away. In the end, to save our First Amendment rights, McCain-Feingold must be repealed.