3. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
"Money used on advertisements is equivalent to speech; Americans have a Constitutional right to engage in political discourse, however costly it may be."
The Argument: Although the notion that elections hinge on fund-raising and 30-second commercials is disturbing, to say the least, it is not nearly as troubling as the prospect of the government setting limits on candidates' rights to express their views. The effort to stifle campaign spending, however well intentioned, fails to recognize the fundamental rights of citizens in this country. Why should a well-funded organization or individual that has a message for the people be prohibited from delivering it? Don't such restrictions on funding deny the concept of the free marketplace of ideas? In truth, Big Brother has no place telling American citizens and businesses how to spend their money.
The Response: No one proposes a measure that would limit a candidate's right to speak or get his/her message out. Most campaign finance proposals are accompanied by plans to federally subsidize elections to ensure that candidates have the ability to run their ads and fund their grassroots activities. Sadly, in our current political climate, raising money and talking to the people have become one and the same. Perhaps, without so much pressure to extract every dollar, politicians would find the time to discuss issues that actually captivate a national audience. Although Al Gore's repeated offer to George W. to "end T.V. ads and debate twice a week on the issues" is more a political gimmick than a serious policy proposal, his offer rests on a compelling premise that campaigns should reward substance and not style or breadth of exposure.
"If tighter restrictions on individual donations are introduced, politicians will still raise the same amount of money - now, it will just be about the number of donations instead of their size."
The Argument: After Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination, they both cited the $2,000 limit per person on campaign contributions as having all but given the election to Bush. How does this work? Well, according to Alexander and Quayle, the low per person limit meant that any candidate that wanted to raise serious money in the primary would have to do so through contact with thousands of potential donors. That type of large-scale operation required far too great an initial expenditure than either Quayle or Alexander could afford. If the restrictions are tightened, the only figures capable of pursuing political careers will be the party favorite and the independently wealthy. We will see fewer candidates, fewer challenges of the establishment, and more party pawns - none of which is good for democracy. Do you think it is a coincidence that, in the last few years, we have seen a proliferation of business tycoons turned self-funded candidates (e.g., Perot)? Well, if campaign finance reform further restricts spending of donated funds, you can expect to hear a lot more from big-eared billionaires.
The Response: The surprising success of a figure like John McCain demonstrates that if a candidate presents an attractive message, the money will come. Campaign giving via the Internet is now the new rage, allowing the majority of citizens to give a few bucks to support their preferred candidate. In any event, though limiting the per-person donation is a good start- it prevents one or two wealthy figures from unduly influencing an election - it is just that, a start. We should also look to ban all soft money, leaving politicians free to devote their energies to helping their real constituency, the American public.
"Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund politicians."
The Argument: Our government is already too bloated and taxes are too high. Why should we commit further money to enabling politicians to sling mud at each other via T.V. ads? If they want to do so, that's their right, but why should the tax dollars of the American public go to pay for it?
The Response: As it stands, the federal funds used on elections come from a voluntary check-off item on federal tax returns. Even if that were not the case, with all the Government spends on other areas (defense, education, social programs), why should elections, the mechanism through which democracy operates, be left out? After all, the amount spent on federal campaign subsidies represents a negligible portion of our federal budget and could easily be kept from growing out of control.
