Campaign Finance "Reform"

Like a lot of people in 2000 and 2001 I was very much in favor of campaign finance reform. But, like so many others, I was disgusted with what we got. The Congress- that I worked for - limited or eliminated donations by large corporations but increased the amount that individuals could contribute. While that might sound like a good way to avoid monopolistic mercantilism, the rich in our country got rich by making great companies. Getting $50000 from Bill Gates isn't all that different than getting it from Microsoft. He's still going to look for the candidate that best supports the interests of his golden goose.

Then there's the issue of free speech. Special interest groups are a popular boogeyman, but they are no more inherently evil, or good, than any other organization. By definition every political body, from the Congress of the United States, to the local school board, to the VFW, is a special interest group. By trying to limit add spending and donations by these groups we exacerbated the very situation we were trying to rectify. To wit: we limited the voice of the people while simultaneously providing protection for the few rich who can afford to buy full page NY Times adds and 30 second Super Bowl spots.

I have seen first hand how money affects, effects, and corrupts politics. This is not a new occurrence. As long as there have been politicians there has been greed and corruption. The Greeks and Romans were no better at finding a solution than we have been. We can try to limit this corruption and better prosecute those who fall prey to the allure of “easy money”, but we cannot hope to completely eliminate it. Not while we elect human beings to office, anyway.

Which brings us full circle: how do you limit the power of money without silencing the voice of the people? Unions were originally formed to protect the rights of workers in an industry. They were, are, special interests groups. Many large unions hold considerable sway, through their monetary and political power. Should we silence the ability of their members to “petition Congress for a redress of wrongs”? Can we, legally? If we say that only individuals can contribute then we intrinsically handicap “the little man” who cannot hope to fight the spending power of a Soros, Gates, or Buffett. If we allow the little men to group together and pool their resources then we are right back where we started, the competing maze of unions, church groups, gun owners, dog lovers, etc. all fighting to be heard and all racing to spend just one dollar more than the opposition.

Sorry but I don’t have any answers. Anyone who tells you he or she does have an easy, quick, solution is lying. And that’s about as clear and honest statement as you are going to get from any politician.