Important Note:

Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.

Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

Campaign Finance reform in reverse                                                                                    

Posted at: Sep/10/2009 : Posted by: mel

Related Category: The Law,

Over the last 40 years there has been a slow but steady growth in laws regulating contributions to political campaigns. At the federal level these laws are enforced by the Federal Election Commission. The debate on these laws has risen to the Supreme Count.

The arguments are centered around a movie attacking Hillary Clinton. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services stuffociated with local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign. Federal courts at the time said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one. Ultimately the movie saw limited release through the internet, DVD sales and some movie theaters as campaign regulations do not apply to these forums.

The film is filled with criticisms of the former first lady, whom President Barack Obama defeated in the primaries and then made his secretary of state. It includes Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a Clinton critic, saying the one-time candidate is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

Like any good court drama, this starts one place and goes somewhere else. The lawyers for Citizens United argue that this is a case of First Amendment right to free speech. The lawyers for the Federal Election Commission argue this is specifically political campaigning material and should be regulated by them. Now the case appears to be mutating to a debate on election financing and whether the sources of those funds.

The federal government does not currently allow corporate or union donations to political campaigns. More than half the states, including California, Washington and Virginia allow corporations to make independent campaign expenditures.

Justice Alito in the hearings questioned the basis for blocking corporate and union campaign donations such as Citizens United and asked the rhetorical question "Have they all been overwhelmed by corruption?".

Justice Stephen Breyer expressed doubts about rolling back the requirements. He suggested that to do so might "make a hash" of campaign finance reforms enacted by Congress in 2002. When the lawyer for Citizens United made casual reference to the movie and freedom of speech Justice Breyer also made the comment it's 'not a musical comedy'.

So where do we go from here? I would be very surprised to see the Supreme Court unravel any existing campaign finance law, though I personally feel the federal laws are to restrictive. For me the challenge is more about disclosure. The election information book that is mailed out in California not only presents arguments on both sides of a proposition, it also tells you who wrote the argument. I would like to see something very similar in candidate elections. Every television or video media election add should begin and end with the name of the organization funding the ad. Streaming information could be included at the bottom of the ad. Similar disclosures could be done for print, internet and radio content. I am more interested in knowing who is pushing and paying for a specific candidate and how much they are spending doing it than any specific limitations on receiving contributions or not.

Politics and politicians by their very nature have become a metaphor for untrustworthy and backdoor dealing. This may not speak very well for our political system, but with each new election we get the change to undo the mistakes of a couple of years ago and vote in a new set of people to watch with a wary eye.

Let’s stop beating around the bush. With each new set of laws our politicians must and will find a new set of loop holes. I am more interested in finding out who feels they have the most to gain if someone gets elected.

The FEC can focus on making sure all election like materials are clearly labeled for what they are and who is paying the bill. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right in our country and there is nothing that says all that free speech needs to be fair, balanced or accurate.

Comments (0)                                                                                                                                                    [Add Comment]