|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
hoosier 
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Sep. 14 2003,8:55 am |
|
   |
Gee, looks like maybe we arent the only people on the face of the earth that think there is way to much special interest money in politics. I agree with Mondale. In my opinion, only individual citizens should be able to contribute to a political campaign or party. Corperations and unions should not be allowed, no matter what anyone says here, all they are doing is buying votes, and all of our politicians in Washinton are more than willing to sell em. It always makes me wonder when politicians fight laws that are made to protect the people from the politicians, this is one of them.
Walter Mondale: A high-court chance to strengthen democracy
Walter F. Mondale
Published September 14, 2003 MOND14
Last year, Congress and President Bush passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, a sweeping reform to limit the influence of money in politics.
Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments on the constitutionality of the law, which is being challenged by an array of groups from the National Rifle Association to Republican and Democratic Party committees. The case presents a historic opportunity to end the corrosive effects of unregulated political money and revive public trust in our political system. I believe the court should uphold the law.
One of the key issues before the court concerns Congress' ability to restrict the use of corporate and labor-union treasury funds in financing federal elections. In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt and Congress banned contributions from corporate treasuries in federal elections. Congress later applied the same ban to labor-union treasuries. The principle behind these laws was simple: Corporations and unions are granted special legal privileges to spur their role as engines of our economy. The wealth they amass as a result should not be used to give them an unfair advantage in the political arena.
In 1974, after Watergate, Congress passed additional reforms to curb the abuses associated with large donations in the 1972 election, reaffirming these basic prohibitions. They remained the law of the land for the next 20 years.
Over the past decade, however, those sensible rules have been eroded by the parties, with both Republicans and Democrats becoming addicted to "soft money" -- unlimited, unregulated contributions by corporations, labor unions and the very wealthy.
These contributions made a mockery of the law and encouraged members of Congress to spend time raising huge sums for party coffers.
Much of this soft money, which totaled almost a half-billion dollars in 2002, was used by the parties to pay for "issue ads" that were actually thinly veiled attack ads designed to elect federal candidates.
In 1997, I chaired a bipartisan commission on campaign finance reform with Nancy Landon Kassebaum-Baker, a former Republican senator from Kansas. The McCain-Feingold law takes action on the three areas we identified as most desperately in need of reform.
First, the law bans these corrupting soft-money contributions. Second, it closes the "issue ad" loophole that encouraged circumvention of contribution limits and allowed use of special-interest money to pay for anonymous ads that support or attack federal candidates. Third, it requires faster, broader disclosure of information about donors than required before.
As sweeping as it may sound, McCain-Feingold would, in large part, simply restore the fundraising rules that were in place when President Jimmy Carter was elected and when President Ronald Reagan was elected twice. I was on the two tickets opposing President Reagan, and have to acknowledge that the rules were fair. We had plenty of money to conduct a campaign, and it was raised in small amounts that posed fewer ethical questions for either party. Under these laws, incumbent presidents were defeated in two consecutive elections, the only time that has happened during my half-century following politics.
Critics of the law say McCain-Feingold violates the constitutional right to free speech. The law, however, does not ban speech. It simply prohibits the use of corrupting soft money to pay for that speech. Parties, interest groups and individuals may still freely spend money to support their candidates, as long as the donations come from "hard-money" sources -- limited contributions from individuals that are publicly disclosed. Even groups funded by corporations or labor unions could meet this requirement by setting up a political action committee (PAC), just as thousands of groups did after the Watergate reforms.
These efforts are also perfectly consistent with Supreme Court rulings. In its famous 1976 Buckley decision, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of free speech rights but upheld Congress' authority to regulate campaign spending. The court ruled that Congress can protect our representative democracy from the danger of corruption -- or the equally damaging appearance of corruption -- that can accompany large contributions.
The briefs submitted to the court by former members of Congress and other advocates of the law offer alarming evidence of the influence special interests now have as a result of soft-money politics. A recent survey found nearly 75 percent of voters believe members of Congress sometimes decide how to vote based on what big soft-money donors want -- even if they don't believe it's what their constituents want or what is best for the country. This impression that government policy is sold to the highest bidder shatters public confidence, inflicting profound damage on our democracy.
Instead of restricting free speech, McCain-Feingold will expand speech opportunities for the vast majority by making every citizen's vote count for more, and making the parties rely on outreach to voters, not to special interests. And that, in turn, will encourage more Americans to get involved in politics.
Americans already have enough reason to be cynical about government. Our nation is at war; our economy is bleeding jobs; the last presidential election had to be decided by the Supreme Court. The justices' coming decision will shape the way we conduct our politics for decades to come. I hope they will seize this fateful opportunity to help restore the public's faith in our most basic institutions.
Former Minnesota Sen. Walter F. Mondale has served as U.S. vice president and U.S. ambassador to Japan.
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
hoosier
Group: Members
Posts: 1476
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2003,9:00 am |
|
 |
"Americans already have enough reason to be cynical about government."
Wow Mr. Mondale, you mean others are cynical as well? Not just the merry band of negative thinkers?
--------------
The power of accurate obsvervation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw
The devil begins with froth on the lips of an angel entering into battle for a holy and just cause. Grigory Pomerants
We have crossed the boundary that lies between Republic and Empire. Garet Garrett
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 14 2003,10:50 am |
|
|
McCain -Feingold may SOUND good, and I agree with it INTENT--but it is fatally flawed.
Mondale says he wants to roll back the laws to the Jimmy Carter era, before all the additional "reforms" (the laws that gave us "soft money" in the first place!) were enacted. Replacing bad laws with another bad law--THAT"s the cure?
Why is this of interest to the U.S. government at all? Why do we pass laws LIMITING how much we can contribute, or spend? I don't see that any other place--limiting charitable contributions, for example, or advertising budgets. Why here?
Mondale is disingenuous in attacking "special interests" (a term designed to convey dark conspiracies). WHO are "special interests"? Are they the major parties? Advocacy groups? People that want their legislator to vote a particular way? The major parties have successfully demonized groups as "special interest". The NRA and the Million Mom March characterize the other as "special interest". The KKK and the NAACP are as well. Pro-choice/pro-life. SUV's are "special interest"--ostensibly because they consume too much fuel--but Minivans, which get the same gas mileage, are not. Social Security vs. privatization. Loggers/Sierra club. Open vs. Closed border advocates. EVERY GROUP IN THE U.S. IS "SPECIAL INTEREST". As a daughter of one of my friends sagely observed "IF EVERYBODY IS SPECIAL, NOBODY IS SPECIAL".
Would you deny the ability of these "special interests" to get their message out? That's what the issue of "Free Speech" in Freeborn County is all about--as Mondale says, McCain-Feingold doesn't deny free speech--it simply reduces the ability of corrupting soft money to pay for that speech". In Freeborn County, we have sitting County Commissioners that have taken action against free speech that we don't like--and we would like to change that. If McCain-Feingold applied to Freeborn County--WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT! The Commissioners could issue "press releases", and float some Pork to parts of the County to curry favor, but those of us seeking change would be able to only contribute small amounts of money. We would be unable to purchase newspaper ads, TV and Radio spots. We would be limited in our ability to turn out the vote. We couldn't advertise against the sitting Commissioner within 60 days of the election. We couldn't band together to come up with money to fight the Commissioners. We couldn't band together with other groups that think as we do--within and without the community--to defeat the Commissioners. How effective would we be? WE are a SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP, under McCain-Feingold!
If you were a Corporation, or a Union, should you have to forfeit your right to voice your opinion? Why are we voluntarily signing away our rights--like the guy that bought a time-share in a planned development, then bitched because he couldn't display his flag? Remember the great Cranberry scare, or the Alar scare, or the Sacharrin scare? Congressional alarmists and ninnies tried to have the products banned--it ruined farmers and industries. Corporations, and the Unions of their workers, banded together to get the truth out--to "educate" Congress--and bad law was prevented, but not until the damage was done. That ability would be virtually LOST under McCain-Feingold. Congress seeks to "protect" (as though we are too dumb to do it ourselves) from individuals, corporations, or Unions trying to elect people that reflect OUR views and values--but WHO IS WATCHING CONGRESS?
Why continue to make bad law? Why not throw out the whole thing, and start over. First, you have to ask--what is the compelling Federal interest in controlling how much an individual, a Union, a Political Action Committee, or a corporation gives to a candidate? I see no reason for the Federal government to control my freedom to spend my money or time to promote the causes of my choice. [b][/i]TRUE REFORM AND FREEDOM COMES FROM [i]FEWER LAWS AND RESTRICTIONS, NOT MORE LAW!
Edited by jimhanson on Sep. 14 2003,11:03 am
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 16 2003,11:04 am |
|
|
Jim-
Yes, the law is flawed and I am sure politicians will find a way around it to continue to see 'contributions' if the supreme court challenge fails, that I have no doubt. The political process in this country has been corrupted by the large influx of unregulated cash, the kind used to sway votes. Asking the politicians to police themselves from corruption is like asking people not to speed, you know they will do it if they can get away with it. That is why you will see no real reform as they will always make sure there is a loophole in any form of legislation they pass. Is reform needed? Defiantly. Will we ever see real reform? Doubtful. Money above all else is premonitory one, and I do not mean the taxpayer money, rather the contribution type.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
pete
Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: Sep. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 25 2003,10:31 pm |
|
|
CPU>
While I may not agree with everything that you wrote. It seems to me that the biggest problem is we keep trying to close so called loopholes that we force people underground. Let people give what they want to who they want but require full disclosure.
I heard Al Quie last week on MPR, his idea was to let only people who live in a area donate but still require full disclosurer. Sounds to me like he is on to something.
I have never understood why people always talk about money. What about groups that don't have much money, but have lots of staff some paid and some unpaid who come from outside of our area to try to influence the vote?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Sep. 26 2003,9:13 am |
|
|
Pete-
One of the loopholes is disclosure. But lets back up a step and look at all the legislation to close the 'loopholes'. Why is it that for every hole they try to close, 2 more open up?
As far as Al's idea, that would mean that we are back to 'money talks' and candidates with the most money would win, correct? Take a look at the current run for president, and notice how popularity is still number 1 but total contributions is a very close number 2, does that say something about the importance of money? With Al's idea, we could have Mr. X donate $1million to candidate Y, and would full disclosure mean that the money is from him alone and has nothing to do with who he works for or on what boards he sits on? Even if 10,000 people gave $100 each to one candidate, and Mr. X gave his million to another, would that mean the political race is even?
All this really does not have anything to do with the current attempt to close a loophole, and that is soft money. Unlike Jim, I do not agree with the argument that regulation of soft money is limiting free speech.
Personally, I think the each politician should be decorated like a race car driver, and have an emblem for every company and special interest group that they take cash from. It would tell everyone up front who is paying.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
