IF YOU, the readership of this fine newspaper, have a pulse, you undoubtedly have felt it. It's that sense of an impending emotional high and of a growing groundswell of support for an important issue. Go onto the streets and ask John Q. Public what the most important issue of the day is, and he, without hesitation, will say, "Campaign finance reform." Yes, sir. Campaign reform mania is sweeping the nation. Then again, perhaps not.
While major broadcast media outlets have made out the current Senate debate on McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform as the most important issue of the decade, no one cares. Given the current state of the stock market, most folks are concerned over whether their 401k will have enough money in it to buy a new can opener to open the dog food they will be eating when they reach retirement. Unfortunately, the current debates hold a great deal of relevance, to the extent that they will determine who will hold the power in the future electoral system.
If McCain-Feingold, in its original form, passes, one group will maintain power indefinitely - incumbents. This will happen because the bill does not alter limitations on direct contributions, but eliminates indirect contributions.
Ever since limitations on direct contributions were instituted, the political system has become one dominated by the power of incumbency. Since no single candidate may solicit more than $1,000 from an individual donor, the possibility for an insurgent candidate to appear out of the blue has diminished. Without the ability to secure major financial support, challengers have difficulty competing on an even level financially with incumbents. The problem with such financial parity lies in the fact that an incumbent has a distinct and monumental advantage in any election. That person has gotten free media coverage throughout his or her term. He or she has been able to hold press conferences, appear at pancake breakfasts, send out "constituent mail" and carry out other regular duties that make that person much more well-known in his or her district.
|
To overcome that advantage, challengers need to have the opportunity to purchase newspaper, radio and television advertisements and to employ grassroots workers. To do that, challengers need money. Under the current system, challengers cannot realistically obtain enough money directly. Most viable challengers find financial support in "soft" money, money given to a group, like the Democratic or Republican Party, that advocates for a particular candidate. Eliminating soft money contributions and not significantly adjusting hard donation limits and eliminating soft money contributions will give incumbents every possible advantage they could have.
By reducing a candidate's ability to purchase airtime to argue his or her own positions, major broadcast media outlets would assume a greater deal of power in the electoral process. While the broader "media conspiracy" likely doesn't exist, it is not unheard of to suspect the media's general ability to do basic things, like possibly declare a winner in a presidential election. By limiting money that candidates can spend on ads, we can expect to see the press deciding more elections.
However, passing this legislation would increase one demographic group in the Congress: zillionaires. According to the Supreme Court, individuals are allowed to spend as much of their own money as they wish on their own campaigns. This means that one can take one's own multi-million dollar bank account and waltz into Congress. By eliminating candidates' only other means of obtaining financial support - soft money - and by maintaining unrealistic limits on direct money contributions, more John Corzines will enter the Senate, and true popular representation will be stifled further.
Throughout this entire debate, one person has emerged as a possible candidate for media sainthood: John the Good, or Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Apparently, since McCain was a hero in the Vietnam War, he is unquestionably qualified to talk on the intricacies and effects of campaign finance reform. Perhaps most frustrating, McCain's approach to this issue has been to repeat the same phrase over and over: "meaningful campaign finance reform." McCain has taken on this issue in the same way that a person playing Whack-a-Mole would use a sledgehammer. The notion of allowing the electoral process to be open to all is a fine. To ignore what his proposals will do to the system is to do a disservice to the political process. McCain-Feingold reform will restrict challenger access to campaigns and, ironically, only further maintain the status quo.
(Seth Wood's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PARTING SHOT: No man is an island
By Ava MacBlane | 3 days agoRetirement, as you can tell, has been treating me well. When people ask me now if I miss it, I laugh and tell them some things I definitely don't miss. But I don't always get to tell them about the things I really do miss.
PARTING SHOT: You never know unless you try
By Lexi Baker | 4 days agoMy time at the University was shaped by the people who showed me grace and kindness and by those who had confidence in me, even when I struggled to have it in myself.
PARTING SHOT: A love letter to Cav Daily and Connection
By Ava Proehl | 4 days agoMy time here taught me to look for the genuine, human connection in every moment.
