Federal Court Strikes Down Most of Campaign Finance Reform Law

So much for fair elections.

I suppose this guarentees W's re-election.

This also kills any hope of a legitimate third party.

I guess this also means that corporations can continue to buy their candidates, or rather pre-pay for favors.

 

Sweet!

 

What did you think of this part of the article-

Dozens of groups joined their effort to overturn parts of the law, including the Republican National Committee, the Democratic and Republican parties of California, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Libertarian National Committee, the National Right to Life Committee and the National Association of Broadcasters.

It appears that this is not exactly a partisan issue.

What do you think about the following proposition- a citizen should be able to use any and all resources to exercise his right to freedom of speech.

 

It may not be a partisan issue, but an issue about those with little money wanting their influence not to be less than those with tons of money.

 

This is clearly not a partisan issue.

The range of groups opposed to this law is simply an illustration of what these people really are.

What these people really are, regardless of party and ideology, is a group of pigs at the trough that are freaking out over their fear that the trough might get a little smaller.

 

I understand that desire perfectly, but the government can't make any laws limiting the free speech of wealthy people. That is a basic right.

 

Am I missing something, how does this restrict free-speech.

 

Yes, that is absolutely true. However, as a society, we have a responsibility to at least make our best efforts to consider the needs of everyone, not just the wealthy. However, when only the wealthy have the ear of the politicians, they are the only one's heard.

I've said for a while that the real problem in American politics isn't liberal or conservative but monetary. Our government is not run of, by and for the people any longer because more than 50 percent of the American people are excluded from the political process simply because they cannot afford to run for office or give money to influence political decisions. A vote is no longer enough to get the undivided attention of a political leader. Now, it takes cash.

We've reached a point where money has become such a staggering influence on politicians, that the issues that are ALWAYS listed among the top 3 most important issues for Americans - education, public safety and healthcare - are routinely ignored no matter how much clamour there is for reform.

I mean, teachers, police officers and firemen/paramedics are among our least compensated citizens, yet there is a nearly constant demand for better schools, safer streets and a better healthcare system.

It just demonstrates that public interest is often ignored in favor of special interest.

I read not too long ago that a good way to eliminate this problem was to make all donations to political parties and/or candidates anonomys. If you REALLY want to give just to support a candidate and not to buy influence, that would separate the real activists from the special interests.

 

I wonder in Iraq is our gonvernment going to allow the restriction of the voices of religious fundamentalists.

 

I'm just being argumentive,

And people are arguing the importance of not restricting political free speech. In Iraq, the religious is political, but that's another topic for another thread.

 

What a hugely complicated issue. Here is an article from a Libertarian that I think is interesting.


Campaign Finance Reform: What's Next?
by Michael Bailey


As he shepherded the McCain-Feingold legislation to passage, John McCain made it clear that he expected additional legislation to become necessary once politicians and interest groups learned to evade the new limits. Recent Federal Election Commission decisions and the activities of interest groups have proven him right, although he probably is not too happy about it.

One alternative for new reform would be to restrict contributions or spending. Even if this is constitutional (it usually is not), it is unwise. Studies show that the information available to voters and voter turnout increase with the amount of money spent on campaigns. In addition, taking money out of campaigns does little to affect the larger sums spent on lobbying, an activity removed from ordinary citizens. If anything, well-funded campaigns provide a counterbalance to special interest lobbying, in that such campaigns are more likely to publicize and punish egregious service to interest groups.

Another approach is to finance campaigns publicly. This has been a nonstarter because voters dislike spending tax dollars on politicians, something that is not surprising in light of the current formula-based system's record for presidential candidates. That formula did little to wean Gore or Bush from wealthy donors even as it wasted 16 million taxpayer dollars on the Buchanan campaign (Buchanan spent an astounding $89 per vote compared to $3.66 for Bush and $2.35 for Gore). The formulaic approach may even have distorted the election: Buchanan ran for president because he had public funding, and Nader ran because he wanted public funding. Their presence on the ballot in Florida, as we know too well, may have changed the election outcome in Florida and the nation.

Done properly, however, public financing could reduce political reliance on special interests and the wealthy without provoking voter ire. First, citizens should be empowered to decide which candidates deserve money. As Bruce Ackerman from Yale Law School suggests, each voter could be assigned a fixed dollar credit that he or she could direct to any candidate (or cause). This would dampen concern about money being spent on disliked candidates and create a means whereby candidates could run credible campaigns without constantly currying favor with corporate, union, and wealthy interests.

Second, reclaiming the tax dollars already being spent on campaigns could provide a good start toward a serious program of public financing. Two hundred million dollars were spent on presidential candidates' campaigns in 2000, with almost $30 million on party conventions. In addition, Congress spends $1.6 billion every year on staff, with the modest estimate that congressional staffers spend 10 percent of their time on reelection activities. Reclaiming these public campaign expenditures could provide $450 million per two-year election cycle.

The bottom line is that a significant amount of federal money goes to campaign activities. The first order of future reform should be to ensure that such funds increase the voice of ordinary citizens, rather than protect incumbents.




Michael Bailey is a national fellow at the Hoover Institution and an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Georgetown University.

 

Bechtel and Halliburton and other corporations will go wild with Bush's strong history of pay backs and his shamelessness in awarding contracts to cronies. With the billions and billions for Iraq reconstruction to be paid by Iraqi oil and/or US taxpayers, the pigs will have a field day at the trough.

What do you expect from a Supreme Court that is in place due to previous elections governed by these types of mega corporation contriubutions?

A sad day for US democracy, but a good day for the Republican party.

 

Glynch, read who opposed McCain/Feingold. In my opinion, the Democrats would be hurt more by the legislation than Republicans, because the Big Union money would be taken out of play.

 

Money buys media time.
Media influences public opinion more than we like to admit.


Corporations already have many benefits that the normal citizen doesn't. They don't need to be influencing politicians.

 

Bending the truth here a little. The pre- McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws did have restrictions on political contributions, for those candidates who participated in "the system". Opting out of the system, like W did in 2000 (and will likely do in 2004), presents an option for those candidates who do not want to have their free speech restricted.

The holes in the curent system are huge. I as an individual may be limited to $1000 per candidate, but can give unlimited amounts of money to the party with a wink so as they will know where to spend it (i.e. soft money contributions going to the candidate of my implied choice). Individual contributions to PACs are another end run of current campaign finance laws for "system" candidates.

I do not see how banning soft money for "system" candidates is a constitutional issue, given the constituonality of the pre- McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws. Those candidates wanting soft money can opt out of the system. By staying in the system, the other candidates are making a decision to restrict their own free speech rights, with or without McCain-Feingold .

 

I have believed for some time now that lobbyists and re-routed campaign contributions are the single greatest problem with the contemporary political scene...I hadn't placed a whole lot of hope in this getting through, and to be honest I wasn't 100% behind what I heard of some of the verbiage, but this is still, IMO, a sad day for all of us, irrespective of party affiliation.