Myrmidonisia
25-01-2006, 18:39
Every time I read another article about the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act of 2002, otherwise know as campaign finance reform, I want to scream. But after I calm down, I think about where this could lead. Then the screaming starts again.
Here's what we have now. The IPA prohibits corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions from running ads that criticize--or even name or show--members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election. Presumably, this is the most fertile time to get an advocacy message into the minds of the voters. But it's a felony for political parties from soliciting or spending "soft money" contributions to publicize the principles and ideas they stand for. Not only has it made free speech a thing of the past, but it has made campaign financing laws as complex as the tax code. The IPA consists of 300 densely printed pages that make running for office yet another chore that requires a lawyer's advice at all times.
What is this supposed to do? According to McCain, this will prevent honest men from becoming corrupt politicians. Sure, you bet. Dishonest politicians are going to find a way to accept bribes, no matter what. That's a hoax that was dreamed up by the Pew Trust and perpetrated on 535 members of Congress. I think a better question is "Where are we headed?"
It looks to me like these efforts to stamp out corruption are really just the opening shots in a fight to eliminate unequal influence. Like most Marxist ideas, this one is full of problems. For one, why should influence be equal, anyway?
But there are other questions that arise in the wake of the crusade against corruption. How are blogs going to be controlled? Surely, the opinions expressed there are as dangerous as any NYT editorial. Or what about talk radio? Should hosts be forced to discuss the difference between centipede and zoysia for 60 days prior to elections?
Personally, I'd like to see all campaign finance laws eliminated. Then just try the members of Congress for influence peddling and accepting bribes exactly as we do now. Forget about the technicalities of whether a candidate accepted $1000 or $10,000 from Lockheed. That's not a dishonest act. Concentrate on the ones that grant favors for non-campaign related cash.
That's my rant for the day, thanks for reading this far.
Here's what we have now. The IPA prohibits corporations, nonprofit advocacy groups and labor unions from running ads that criticize--or even name or show--members of Congress within 60 days of a federal election. Presumably, this is the most fertile time to get an advocacy message into the minds of the voters. But it's a felony for political parties from soliciting or spending "soft money" contributions to publicize the principles and ideas they stand for. Not only has it made free speech a thing of the past, but it has made campaign financing laws as complex as the tax code. The IPA consists of 300 densely printed pages that make running for office yet another chore that requires a lawyer's advice at all times.
What is this supposed to do? According to McCain, this will prevent honest men from becoming corrupt politicians. Sure, you bet. Dishonest politicians are going to find a way to accept bribes, no matter what. That's a hoax that was dreamed up by the Pew Trust and perpetrated on 535 members of Congress. I think a better question is "Where are we headed?"
It looks to me like these efforts to stamp out corruption are really just the opening shots in a fight to eliminate unequal influence. Like most Marxist ideas, this one is full of problems. For one, why should influence be equal, anyway?
But there are other questions that arise in the wake of the crusade against corruption. How are blogs going to be controlled? Surely, the opinions expressed there are as dangerous as any NYT editorial. Or what about talk radio? Should hosts be forced to discuss the difference between centipede and zoysia for 60 days prior to elections?
Personally, I'd like to see all campaign finance laws eliminated. Then just try the members of Congress for influence peddling and accepting bribes exactly as we do now. Forget about the technicalities of whether a candidate accepted $1000 or $10,000 from Lockheed. That's not a dishonest act. Concentrate on the ones that grant favors for non-campaign related cash.
That's my rant for the day, thanks for reading this far.