| OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Spring 2000 republic over a pure democracy as a governmental form. The more we limit the amount of money that is available to the representatives who seek office, or candidates, the more we weaken the republican principle and move toward a pure democracy. Or, given the erosion of Madison's second protection against democratic excess, the more we strengthen the hand of special interests. This is particularly ironic as all of the calls for such campaign finance reform are made in the name of supposedly weakening the power of the special interests. Consider the following. In a particular congressional district, we have candidate A and candidate B, both under strict spending limitations, which means that each has a limit on the amount he or she can spend to tell the voters about their respective positions on the issues. The special interests, on the other hand-the labor unions, the environmentalists, the Christian Coalition, or the NRA - have no such limits, which means that the voters can and presumably will be bombarded with information aimed at influencing their vote. Unless we repeal the First Amendment right of free speech and press, which I am by no means advocating, the special interests will never have such limitations placed upon them. Receiving proportionately less and less information from the candidates, and more and more from the special interests, the voters will ultimately make their choices on the basis of which special interest message is the most persuasive. The candidate's intellect, training, character, and talent will become secondary if not, in the end, lost altogether in the elective process. If, in the name of "reform" we set up a circumstance which limits the ability of a candidate to raise and spend his or her own money, therefore limiting that candidate's ability to put forth his or her own positions, we strengthen the hands of those who have no such limits, but strong political positions to promote. We weaken the ability of a candidate to stand up to a special interest when we say to the candidate, "If you disagree with the position taken by the AFL-CIO, or the Sierra Club, or the Christian Coalition, or the Trial Lawyers Association, or the NRA, you have only a limited number of dollars available to use to make that case. They, on the other hand, can say whatever they want without limitation about you and your position." That is not a fair fight. That is not the position that Madison laid before American voters as they contemplated the Constitution. That is not the kind of fundamental change in our political processes that we should be pursuing here. But what kinds of fundamental changes should we pursue? The Need for Full Disclosure I believe in the power of full disclosure. I support measures that would eliminate all limitations on candidates to raise and spend money, as long as those candidates are open and candid in disclosing to their voters where their money came from. I would extend those disclosure requirements to special interests. We know that the AFL-CIO is spending money that comes from dues assessments laid upon its members. The more people know that, the more questions that can be raised as to whether those members approve of the ways those dues are being spent. What we do not know is where the money comes from that supports the purchasing of advertisements by some of the environmental groups that have entered the political arena. We do not know the exact nature of the contributions that keep the doors of the Christian Coalition open, or pay for the ads or airtime that it purchases. And we do not know the extent to which people on the payrolls of these various organizations show up in campaigns, and work on behalf of one candidate's election or the other. I do not condemn any of the activities of any of these groups. They are fully protected by the First Amendment in their right to believe as they wish, speak as they wish and campaign as they wish. Nonetheless, if we are to preserve the principles laid down by Madison and his contemporaries, we have the right to know more about the inner-workings of these "factions" than we do now. They are major players in the political game, and deserve to be given the same scrutiny as the candidates themselves. I close by going back to Madison, "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire...." Absolutely a major purpose for which the Founding Fathers created the Constitution , is protecting the rights of everyone to have his own special interest, belong to his own faction, and hold his own opinions. An attempt on the part of the Senate of the United States to destroy that right is clearly and appropriately going to be held unconstitutional as it has been again and again. 91 |
