Has anyone noticed ANY changes as a result of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms? I think Bush signed that one just to make this issue go away and in many ways, it has. Campaign finance reform is truly a joke. In a country where freedom of speech is one of our very basic rights, silencing people, whether Swift Boat Vets or the move oners, they have a right to speak. Now with this whole Rather-biased mess, it's clear that trying to silence one mode of speech but not silencing bias like Rather (on the PUBLIC airwaves) is totally wrong.
Let people give their money to whoever they want. Anyone who can buy airtime should have access. All I ask is that each donor be disclosed.
Posted by Tim at September 22, 2004 07:20 AMSo many people claim 1st Amendment protections to say what they want - no matter how offensive and nasty as can be.
Yet when someone wants to bring up issues relating to an election that POLITCAL SPEECH is now regulated.
This is the most idiotic bastardization of the 1st Amendment that could be possible. I'm not a big fan of censorship ever, but if something should NOT be censored, if something should be regulated, it should be politcal speech because that is exactly what the 1st protects - NOT ganster rap.
Adding to that the inability of people to give as much money as they wish does not help anyone but those who already have the support of the establishment. I'm not a big fan of third party candidates, but McCain-Feingold now makes it impossible for smaller candidates to run because it is not quality donations, but quanity. The problem is if you do not have the initial funds to market yourself to get more people to know you you will never be able to convince them to give you those contributions.
It only serves to perpetuate those in power. And as we've also seen it is totally uselss when it comes to stopping 527-types of any ilk.
Posted by: Edward W. Prather at September 22, 2004 07:34 AMI'm not a big fan of McCain-Feingold as it stands either, and agree that something needs to be done. But . . . what?
I'm not sure I'd agree that the solution is to simply let anyone give any amount they want to. The basic premise of campaign reform, as I understand it, is to prevent special interest groups with more dollars than sense or rich individuals with big bucks from spending so much that they, in essence, buy an election through advertising.
Tim suggested that "anyone who can buy airtime should have access." Yes, but considering how expensive airtime is, that in itself limits the ability of some to play the political game.
Again, I'm not saying that M-F is the answer - it's obviously not - but let's possibly try to find a way to level the playing field and give anyone who wants to play a chance to do so.
Or is the political system in this country so broken that it can't be fixed? If so, I'm worried - has the great experiment that is America, failed?
Posted by: Paul at September 22, 2004 10:43 AMI agree with Tim. Full disclosure. Let the voters sort out the rest.
Posted by: Amy Ridenour at September 22, 2004 10:10 PM
