Posted by
Pedro Sykes on Friday, February 19, 2010 3:39:51 PM
One of the most important sentences every written, is the First
Amendment of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
Now that some time has passed, I find that there is not a lot of
discussion about the court ruling on campaign finance law. I've seen
some arguments but little real discussion. I do however find that some
of these arguments about the overturn of the McCain-Feingold Campaign
Finance Law of interest. The way I understand the intent of the law
was to remove excessively large amount of money from going straight to
candidates for political office and outside groups from influencing
election outcomes. It was intended to keep the politicians "honest."
These are a worthy goal. But did it work? In the last election there
were large amounts of money raised by politicians and for them. Outside
organizations pumped millions of dollars into promoting various
candidates and elected officials. Lobbyist still roam the hall of
Congress and meet with members of the Administration daily. Many groups
found ways to circumvent the law. The sudden growth of Political
Action Committees (PACs) was accelerate and the 501(c) organizations
were created by the law.
It seems that many were happy that the law restricted those "evil
corporations" from making donations. A question that was dwelt upon was
the question of defining money and free speech as equal. I feel that
the other relevant section of "to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances" statement should be considered. Now I know that the
petition part may seem a little dicey, but the limits place on campaign
donations as a whole also restricts the ability of everyone to support
or reject candidates. A really good way to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances is to work to remove an offending elected
official from office. Nothing says redress of grievance better than
kicking them to the curb. This is not always possible or practical, but
sometimes the only way to get true change is to get a change of face in
the office.
Another argument is the fall back to the idea that
not all speech is protected. It is true that you cannot shout "FIRE" in
a crowded movie house. Of course it is not against the law to shout
"MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse. It is also true that it is not illegal
to shout "FIRE" in a movie house when
there is a fire. In
addition; how about it being illegal just 2 weeks before a date set on
the calendar? The latter is the issue that caused the challenge to this
law. It was because the law limited speech right before an election
that put the courts and this law on a collision course. This was built
on a house of cards, the resulting challenge put the entire law up for
review. I remember that there was a lot of speculation when it passed
that it would not pass Supreme Court muster. Well at least the
"experts" had something right.
So what is my final view? I think that the law, like a lot of laws, was
conceived with a lot of good intentions. But laws, just like locks, in
the end only keep honest people honest. The dishonest will always look
for ways to get around it. I'm sorry to say that I feel that it is
hard to trust the people that caused the problem to solve it.
Transparency in the campaign process would be the best route to keeping
our leader's more responsive to the public. All campaign donation
should be reported with donors prominently exposed to the light of day.
Ads that support any campaign should be labeled plainly as to the
company or person who is paying for the ad. If the public knows who is
supporting a candidate it is much easier to decide if they're worthy of
support. The fear that some company will dive in and smear a person
running for office at the last minute is a concern. Of course as it has
been seen in the past, you can simple release false information to "The
Press" and let them do it for free.
So Mr. McCain and Mr Feingold I felt your law was misguided and
unconstitutional from the beginning. I would like to see honest people
in Washington, but I fear that your attempt at reform moved us in the
wrong direction. Open and honest speech is what we need. Controls on
speech is a dangerous road to go down and I'm glad to see the court
returned some rights to the people. Well at least until the next time.
©2010 Pedro Sykes - Some Rights Reserved