Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Let's say we ignore the First Amendment and eliminate a politician's ability to use the mass media advertising of TV, mail, newspaper, etc. The immediate result is that the press becomes supreme arbiter of whose voice is heard. The press will choose who wins the election.
I see people like to throw around the First Amendment like a pair of dirty panties, so let's see what it really says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Nowhere does it guarantee a politician the right to amass ridiculous amounts of money from any possible source. Limiting
money does not imply limiting
speech. With such logic as above, we could say that money laundering laws breach my First Amendment rights as well.
(You could say that already happens. But Ross Perot buying airtime in 1992 proved that it's possible to attract a sizable number of votes and be a political outsider. Making it impossible to buy airtime would have hurt Perot, not helped him.)
How many political candidates buy half-hour infomercials on the issues? Only Ross Perot and only once (unless you remember Lyndon LaRouche). What do candidates really buy? 30-second blurbs, where they gloss over the facts, distort the facts over their opponents, and go on smear campaigns, while making vague promises on certain issues. This is a problem under both the Republican and Democratic parties, not just one of them. Last I heard, libel and defamation, while "speech," are not automatically protected under the First Amendment.
That's no good, so let's require "equal time"; let's again ignore the Constitution and require the press to spend an equal amount of time on each candidate. Each candidate is invited to the debates, allowed to write essays of equal length for the major papers, etc. The U.S. already has a dozen or so unqualified and - to be honest - wacky nobodies who run for President. Require "equal time" of the press, and you'll have those guys flooding the airwaves with irrelevancies, and you'll attract even more people who want nothing more than to "run for President" just to publicize their pet concerns. Instead of too little debate, you'll have too much, and genuine issues of concern will be drowned out by the noise.
"Equal time" does not violate the Constitution. In fact, it's funny you use that term. "Equal time" was part of a 1933 Communication Act (I wish I remembered the exact name) that mandated that, if a station decided to make a stance on a certain issue--whether that be abortion or a certain political candidate--the opponent was guaranteed "equal time" to make a rebuttal. Of course, I do believe that was eliminated in the 1980s under a different law, but the next time you wish to talk about constitutional law, I'd look at past precedent.
Of course, one could limit the "equal time" requirement to those candidates that actually stand a chance of winning the election, but that brings us back to the DNC and the GOP.
And, somehow, under this current deregulatory system, the third parties get represented?
Looking at campaign funding, I see two choices: limit individual spending, and limit spending by a group.
Brilliantly vague. There are a few categories: individuals, households, foreign citizens, foreign groups, businesses, unions, and interest groups/PACs. I'm sure there are more, but this is a good start.
Limiting individual spending is fruitless. If a person can only give $1000 to a candidate, but a group can give an unlimited amount, he will simply form a small group (on paper, probably asking a few friends to join him) and give what he wanted to via the beginning. Limiting what he can give to a group to prevent that loophole would cause serious damage to minority groups that work for the legal protection of an entire race on the backs of those few who can donate to the cause.
I agree that simply limiting individuals will just lead to the creation of fictitious groups. Likewise, just limiting groups and allowing unlimited individual contributions (like the Republican Party has advocated) will just allow particularly wealthy groups (businesses, etc.) to funnel money to the CEO, who will donate as an "individual."
Finally, limiting what a group can give thows out the metaphorical baby with the bathwater. PAC's are gone, sure, but so are the political powers of the AARP and every other politically-minded organization. In fact, it destroys one of the bedrocks of American political change: a handful of individuals with the same concerns forms an organization which finds and financially supports candidates that champion their causes.
Lobbying and lobbyist groups were not permitted until the 1930s. Obviously, our country ran perfectly fine before that. The reason behind them, though? Politicians, supposedly, were so far removed from their home district that lobbyists would inform them of the issues. In a romanticized fantasy, this would work, but the reality is that these groups just further their own agendas, regardless of what constituents want.
Regardless, this is not about lobbying, but
campaign contributions. In fact, you've just made a very disturbing slip, but it's real: campaign contributions influence politics. You said so, in not so many words, yourself. If the AARP, for instance, gives money to Senator X, it is expected that Senator X will bend over backwards for it. If Dole Fruits gives money to Senator Y, it is expected that he will do something in return--like overthrow the government of Honduras. Once again, limiting
campaign contributions is not the same as
limiting speech. In fact, I believe that, by barring their abilities to give money to any candidate or party, you can put PACs like AARP and large corporations like Microsoft at the same level of political influence. They can still send lobbyists, because what I advocate does not restrict that, and a Senator will not have money that binds them to look after the interests of one group over another. This is what a Republic is all about. What we have is the equivalent of bribery.
The bottom line is this: there is no way to prevent the "bribery" of corporations and the wealthy without severely limiting the rights of individuals to create organizations like the NRA and the AARP and to financially support political candidates throught those groups. There's no way to keep individual freedom intact with those suggestions.
To reiterate, limiting an individual's or interest group's ability to give
campaign funds is not the same as limiting their
speech. The NRA and AARP can still lobby their interests, but, this time, they cannot throw money at a Senator to look after their interests over others' interests.
While spending caps look great on paper, the effects seem to be disasterous. It seems that very few people think of the long-term and large-scale effects of these "reforms", but that doesn't mean the effects will not occur.
Actually, spending caps look better than ever.
Melon
------------------
"Oh no...my brains."
