PurpleThink.com

Electile Dysfunction
October 3,2006

I wish Bob Dole could sell us a little blue pill that would relieve us of impotent elections.

In PurpleThink territory across the country, campaign advertisements have reached their fever pitch. However, have you noticed that campaign media is quite different this time around?

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform dramatically shifted how money works in political campaigns. The Bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act (BPCR) limits dollars flowing from national parties to localities. In addition, individual campaigns have new restrictions on donations and expenditures.

There are better sources out there to learn about McCain-Feingold. Regardless of its intent, the results have been quite obvious.

In Seattle, a radio talk show host decided to protest a gas tax hike by calling-on volunteers to start a petition drive for repeal. He was met with a lawsuit claiming violation of campaign-finance laws. The rationale? Radio time is money – money is regulated in campaigns – ergo, the market value of the radio time must be calculated and stay within lawful limits. The judge ruled against the radio station, thus limiting free speech on the topic to the equivalent of 15 minutes between now and election time. There is a similar fight brewing in Colorado.

The end result? We are forced to petition government to exercise our free-speech rights against government -- a clear violation of constitutional rights. Even the more conservative provisions of the law are sickening. Consider:

1) Campaigns are less transparent. Despite attempts to divulge who “approved this message,” and contributed to campaigns, political intentions are less clear. Money is like water and finds the path of least resistance to its logical level. If candidates cannot themselves use money, that does not mean there is less money to spend, it just goes somewhere else. That “somewhere else” is 527 groups – left completely unregulated by McCain-Feingold. Now, instead of getting negative messages directly from candidates and their campaigns, we get messages from non-descript groups like MoveOn.org, and The Media Fund. They produce cleverly worded commercials that may or may not mention a specific candidate, but clearly furthers the interest of one candidate over another. George Soros and other politically-minded rich didn’t stop spending because of campaign finance reform, they just now spend their money where a candidate is not overtly mentioned. The end result is less transparency, and a less empowered electorate.

2) Campaigns are more negative. With free speech restricted 60-days prior to elections and spending limited, parties are forced to get more creative in their attacks. If you are restricted from furthering your own message, you get others to do it for you. Take a look at the following “coincidences.” Some may actually be coincidences -- but all of them? No way.

All within 60-days of this election:

- September 2006. The NIE on terrorist advances is leaked by an unknown source with only liberal-supporting arguments divulged. This was first drafted in April. Why wasn’t this leaked then?

- September 2006. Senator George Allen’s allegedly racist past is reported. Sources reference statements he made while in college. He’s held public office since 1981, why raise these now?

- September 2006. Florida Representative Mark Foley is accused by ABC and The Washington Post of writing sexually explicit text messages to underage House pages (later determined to be untrue -- he was 18 at the time). The messages in question took place in 2003. Who had these records and why release them now?

- September 2006. Bob Woodward’s new book “State of Denial” takes aim at Bush’s lack of planning and arrogance in how the Iraq war has been managed. The research for this book was completed years ago. Why publish now?

3) Campaigns are more corrupt. In addition to 527 groups, now special interests are awash in political capital to be spent. Labor unions, big oil, the NRA and the NEA all have PACs and other operatives that have gained incredible influence. Restrictions on national party funding of campaigns have left special interests holding more sway over individual candidates. Caught in a bitter political battle and strapped for cash, you’ll go to any port in a storm – even if this means selling out to remain politically viable.

4) Campaigns are undemocratic. You would think third-parties love McCain-Feingold. Wrong. Even though the big parties are restricted from unlimited use of their profound wealth, smaller parties are hurt more. BPCR is pro-incumbency. Any time debate is curtailed and candidate names are less prevalent, there is less chance of changing the status-quo. Further, smaller parties with dramatically limited resources are devastated by rules that prohibit the free-flow of funds from one jurisdiction to another and from national to local elections.

What to do? There is no easy answer, but it is clear that campaign finance reform has become synonymous with campaign restrictions. This is not reform. When funding rules encourage less debate, from ambiguous sources, and with fewer choices we’re all rendered impotent.

|

Home |epinion|Purple People Eater

Feedback@PurpleThink.com