|
Campaign
finance reform doesn’t hurt free speech Last Thursday an editorial appeared in this paper charging that the Congress had just violated the U.S. Constitution and “launched an assault that is far more damaging to our great republic than the terrorist attack on Sept. 11.” Well, needlessly inflammatory rhetoric and poor taste aside (personally I don’t think a bill that limits soft money and “attack/issues ads” is comparable to an event that cost several thousand people their lives) and despite his obvious bias, I thought Mr. Tom Daniels made a few assertions worth refuting. First off, only someone completely unfamiliar with the last 85 years of Supreme Court precedent would make the assertion that our government’s policy on the First Amendment is unchanging. It can’t be said that the First Amendment is a granite stone, completely nonnegotiable and the Constitution, a historical document that doesn’t live and breathe with the times and people it serves. But this becomes a moot point when it comes to the Shays-Meehan Bill, because money isn’t speech. It’s worth repeating again because it’s a very important point to make: Money isn’t speech. Just because you inherit a Fortune 500 company from your father or you receive a genetic endowment that leads you to become a cardiologist doesn’t entitle you to any greater influence over a public election than someone who does pro bono work for the American Civil Liberties Union or is employed at the local fire station. We live in a democracy, not an Oligarchy. One vote. One voice. The campaign finance reform bill doesn’t stop a person from attending a rally or even from organizing one. It doesn’t prevent you from shouting from a roof top about whatever issue you feel needs a voice. In no way does this bill prevent you from enjoying the rights of free speech as outlined by the Supreme Court. What it does stop is people and corporations, whose motives tend to be vastly different from people without several hundred thousand dollars to spend, from unduly using their wealth to influence election outcomes. The attempt here is to return to a time when candidates engaged in a dialogue with the country. To return to a time when it was one’s stance on political issues and the strength of one’s ideas that got a candidate elected. A time when the size of their war chest and how many affluent friends they could garner to run “issues ads” didn’t matter. Speech won’t be silenced just because it’s being prevented from being bought. Daniels writes that, “a citizen of the United States will be unable to take part in the election process by purchasing advertisement time to give views that either support or attempt to block the election of a federal political candidate.” And, “the voice of the common citizen will be silenced if the Senate passes this legislation.” One can’t be sure of his definition of “the common citizen,” but mine doesn’t entail someone capable of purchasing advertising time during the World Series or putting up $100,000 in soft money donations. The routes of the common citizen are still open and strengthened by this bill. You can still write your congressman, and you can still attend a town meeting. The very reason the common citizen doesn’t appear to have much of a voice in modern politics is because of people like Mr. Daniels, who hold the mentality that speech is something that can be bought and is a right primarily of those who can afford it. Of course politicians won’t pay much attention to average citizens when special interest groups and wealthy business men can run third party “attack ads” and make huge campaign donations to them. Removing the distinction of wealthy campaign finance reform helps the electoral process more fully realize the intention of its creators. This is a democracy where everyone is given equal weight and equal say in the election of public officials. Mr. Daniels ended his editorial by suggesting that you write your congressman to protest the Shays-Meehan Bill. But it’s only because of campaign finance reform that your letter will have a chance for equal footing with soft money interests and that your congressman will pay attention.
|
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||