The Cynic Express(ed) 1.03: Finance Reform Vesus Voter Reform

     Amidst the three or four rings that comprise the current circus of political fund-raising scandal in Washington, with the hoopla of firing salvo after salvo of rumor and allegation in hopes of striking the truth and bringing down what is a pretty narcissistic and ineffectual presidential administration, the McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform bill has died a quiet death in the Senate. Good riddance.

     Campaign finance laws are already in place, whether the public knows about them or not. According to current law, people can only give a gift of one thousand dollars to any one particular candidate. However, a person can give unlimited oodles of money to a party, which will then channel the money to its particular candidates. The McCain-Feingold bill would clip that freedom in the bud. Individuals would be limited to giving one thousand dollars to any candidate or party.

     What is the big deal? I can think of two possible reasons for the limits. The first outcynics even me--that dollars buy votes. Of course, the American people are sheep more often than not, but the way these legislators would fix that is to make tighter pens instead of a more thoughtful populace. The more advertising dollars, the theory might go, the more votes. Negatively focussed ads (one might even just call these ads "homenims," but only the people with philosophical inclinations would find this clever) work best, so the biggest, baddest campaign budget would win. And the candidate more beloved by the more affluent would win. Money buys votes, and by limiting the influx of money to a candidate's coffers, we could stop the flow of negative ads and make a more egalitarian election. Of course, this theory disavows any intelligence on the part of the voters and turns potentially thoughtful people into mere statistical tick marks.

     The second reason is cynical, too. It assumes that a large donation will put a candidate, if elected, into the pocket of heavy contributors. Okay, as Pink Floyd alluded to, some people are sheep, but some are dogs. I can't deny that certain members of the newly emergent ruling class--okay, perhaps all of them--would certainly behave a certain way--beg, roll over, and so forth--for a treat. I refuse to believe that everyone is like that, and I refuse to penalize everyone for the wrongdoing of a few. To think it is a fair solution is to march into My Lai with your guns blazing.

     And who is hurt by campaign finance restrictions? Not the huge multinational conglomerations of commerce and corruption; they will find other methods to get their audience with congressmen. Not the pork-barrel politician without a conscience; there is more than one way to skin a congressional district. The person whose rights and freedoms are trampled in the rush to legislate mindless equality to all is the contributor. Yes, that rich guy who has an extra thousand or ten lying around is his bank account. The born-again Fundamentalist who wants to bequeath his hundred thousand dollar legacy to help stamp out abortion, homosexuality, and evolution. The pair of hippie misfits who have turned their love of electronics/pharmaceuticals/ice cream into a multi-million dollar company who want to give back something to the community in the form of a couple thousand dollars to a congressional candidate who feels as they do, that the environment needs to be protected from man's progress and survival, that the techno/industrial/military complex runs the country and needs to be stopped, and that not enough starving "artists" are being fed from the public trough. These self-made people are being stifled, their thoughts and expression --dare I say it --oppressed, mostly by people who are elected already and are not charismatic enough or of solid enough convictions to win such patronage.

     Have I got a better idea? Well, as a matter of fact, since you asked, I do. I think that what is needed here is not campaign finance reform, but voter reform. We need a more attentive populace, one that can not only name its congressmen and senators, but also convictions and the convictions of the representatives. Of course, we have to start with ourselves, taking an interest in who has his or her hands on the helm of this nation and why. And voting, for crying out loud, not so much according to what's in it for me, but what's in it for all of us, and hoping that the congressmen we elect will do the same.

     And if they must have some sort of campaign finance legislation in place to make them feel better, why not remove the restrictions, but add a surcharge or tax to the contributions. Use the proceeds to fund local position papers, little tracts that will tell voters the positions held by each candidate in an election along with a copy of the candidate's resumes. The government can junk mail them out or have them available for requests. Educating the populace is in our interest far more than simply limiting ourselves just because some of us handle power and money as well as a wayward Mormon at Mardi Gras holds his Hurricanes. But the drunk tanks are easier to build and maintain than sobriety, and laws are easier to encourage and enforce than critical thought.