"What we have is two important values in conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both." Those chilling words came from Rep. Dick Gephardt, the likely top challenger to Vice President Gore for the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination, in an interview with Time.
Look at the bright side. In contrast to the usual false choices our leaders offer us, here is a real one: It's either free speech or "clean" campaigns. President Clinton's designated hitters on campaign finance reform also are being honest. Appearing on the March 23 Meet the Press, former Vice President Walter Mondale and former Republican Sen. Nancy Kassebaum-Baker argued, as an AP report summarized, "Congress shouldn't use claims of free speech problems as an excuse to reject limits on political spending." Or as Mrs. Baker bluntly put it, "It may be [that's] what's going to be necessary. . . to draft the best legislation possible." She was referring to the near certainty of First Amendment lawsuits if campaign finance "reform" is enacted.
The president supports the McCain-Feingold bill, which is breathtaking in scope: The cost of Senate races "shall not exceed the lesser of $5,500,000, or the greater of $950,000 or $400,000 plus 30 cents multiplied by the voting age population not in excess of 4,000,000 and 25 cents multiplied by the voting age population in excess of 4,000,000." Got that? But wait. One other exception: If there is only one licensed VHF television station in the state, 80 cents should be substituted for 30 and 70 cents substituted for 25, respectively. McCain-Feingold bans soft money, requires free television (the formula is no simpler than that outlined above), and restricts out-of-state contributions.
This, we are told, will help "take money out of politics." Former Delaware Gov. Pete duPont, 1988 GOP candidate for president, proposes instead of more tortuous regulations full disclosure. In a commentary on his IntellectualCapital World Wide Web site, Mr. duPont suggests: "[R]equire every campaign contribution . . . to be reported daily to the Federal Election Commission by electronic means. If President Clinton's campaign wants to take $50,000 from John Huang, it can. . . . But it will be reported in the morning paper. And the people will decide if it is wrong."
Or how about simply restricting the government's ability to manipulate the tax code, transfer wealth, or otherwise give away millions of dollars of tax-funded goodies? This is different, by the way, from a pro-life PAC lobbying against abortion, or even giving money to the campaign of a pro-life politician. There, a quid pro quo is justifiable. There's no money at stake. What is wrong is giving money with the expectation of a financial return. Here's our simple campaign finance reform: If nothing's for sale, there will be be no buyers.
ACCESS THIS ARTICLE IMMEDIATELY AND RECEIVE ONE MONTH OF ONLINE ACCESS AND TWO ISSUES OF WORLD'S PRINT EDITION—ALL FOR JUST $5. SEE THE NEW SUBSCRIBER BOX BELOW.
IF YOU ARE ALREADY A PRINT OR ONLINE-ONLY SUBSCRIBER, PLEASE LOG IN BELOW.
Receive instant access to this article and one-month access to WORLD's subscriber-only online content
— plus, enjoy 2 issues of WORLD's print edition — all for just $5*.
Want a different type of subscription?
Click the following links for Online-Only Subscription options
or Print Subscription options
(which include online subscription access).
Payment Information
NEED HELP? Call 800-951-6397, Monday-Friday (except holidays), 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET, or send email to customerservice@worldmag.com.
DISPATCHES |
Issue: "Question of Faith"
April 05, 1997
Evolved