| OCR Text |
Show HINCKLEY JOURNAL OF POLITICS SPRING 2001 may not expressly advocate the victory or defeat of a particular candidate. However, that is where the regulation of independent expenditures ends. Upon learning about this loophole, many ask how this is possible. It is inconceivable to most average voters that their vote could be influenced as much by a television advertisement run by a non-profit group or an individual who has a stake in the election. Despite this general antagonism towards the notion of independent expenditures, the development of this phenomenon is fairly easily understood. As every American school child learns early on in their education, they have the right to free speech and freedom of expression. Inherent in these rights is the ability to express one's beliefs unhindered by government intervention so long as their choice of expression is not deemed harmful or grossly inappropriate. To quote Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), "The First Amendment doesn't allow us the latitude to categorize certain kinds of speech as offensive and other kinds of speech as laudable." (Associated Press 1999, 5) Obviously, Sen. McConnell does not support efforts to limit or prohibit independent expenditures. Because of this Constitutional guarantee, the use of independent expenditure by groups and individuals in recent elections has proliferated. During the presidential primary of 2000, several groups such as the Virginia Right to Life Group poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into races across the country to affect the outcome. An example much closer to home, can be found during a recent election for the Second Congressional District seat in Utah (then held by Republican Merrill Cook). Using the "independent expenditure" loophole in federal campaign financing laws, a group called Term Limits USA, which advocates limiting terms of federal officeholders, spent massive amounts of money in attack ads which criticized Representative Cook for reneging on an agreement he signed with them during an earlier campaign to limit himself to 3 terms. While these ads did mention in small print that they were paid for solely by the Term Limits organization, they were almost indiscernible from attack ads being run by Cook's opponent, Lily Eskelsen. With reference to the "independent expenditure" loophole, the Shays-Meehan Bill (BCFRA) would require any organization that spends more then $50,000 during a calendar year on federal election activities to file a monthly statement with the FEC. While this would not necessarily close the loophole in current campaign finance laws, it would shed some light on who is behind these advertisements. Current law allows these advertisements to be funded entirely from wealthy individuals or corporations and does not require the groups airing them to reveal the sources of any of these contributions. CONCLUSIONS Having worked in and around campaign fund-raising now for the past 2 years, I have been introduced to many of these con- cepts on a very personal level. During this time I have formed some very strong opinions about the need for effective reform on several different levels. I will start with the area that I find most significant. Congress must ban soft money now before it overwhelms our campaign finance laws and our political process. Ending the soft money system requires more than changing the labels put on money. It is not acceptable to impose so-called "limits" on soft money which would simply continue to allow soft money to flow into federal campaigns under a new name. The clear lines walling off corporate and union treasury money from political campaigns should not be breached (Common Cause 1999). This quote from Scott Harshbarger, the director of Common Cause, accurately reflects my opinion on the issue of soft money reform. Common Cause offers a three pronged solution to the crisis of soft-money in American politics: National parties, candidates, and most importantly, state party apparatuses should be prohibited from soliciting, spending, or directing soft-money in any way to a federal campaign. This notion is clearly embodied in the Shays-Meehan legislation and was also expressed accurately in the failed McCain-Feingold bill. This first step is integral in cleaning up the influence of wealthy individuals and large corporations affecting American elections and policies. Beyond a ban on soft-money, many other beneficial changes can be made in the system of federal elections. As an intern in the fund-raising office of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, I witnessed firsthand the constant need to "dial for dollars." For Senator Kerry, this need was enhanced tenfold by what I consider to be his honorable decision to forgo special-interest PAC donations. The current system of campaign financing in this country penalizes good public servants like Senator Kerry by forcing them to devote more time to selling themselves and their candidacy for contributions, while it rewards those who choose to cozy up to special interests and accept large PAC contributions. This malfeasance of logic in our current campaign financing system needs to end, and it can. Through legislation, such as the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, we can take another step towards ridding our system of the special interest money that currently pervades every aspect of American politics. However, I am not naive about the realities of campaigning in this day and age. It is expensive and many voters are turned off. Substantial amounts of money are required to communicate a message to the minority of the American population that is still listening. Because of these realities, I support public financing of campaigns on both congressional and presidential levels. Through providing public money for elections, we would effectively free candidates and incumbents from the vicious cycle of campaign fund-raising. However, public funding can not be mandatory. Given the restrictions of the Constitution, we may never be able to fully regulate the amount of money an individual chooses to spend out of his or her own pocket for an election. Hopefully by making public 61 |
