Counterpoint

Here's a guest piece by Gandhi, which I have taken the liberty of commenting on. Please do not associate me with his viewpoints, nor worse his facts.

I wouldn't be so hasty to call victory, Chops. That is what the Democrats would like you to think - that big money from big companies comes with corruption and strings attached. In fact, the implementation behind McCain-Feingold comes as a significant blow to Republican fundraising, and extends the control of the federal government to restrict us from spending our money as we please. Sadly, the days of small, beautiful campaigns are over. The Democrats have their own dirty games for fundraising through loopholes in the new law... notice that few of them have been complaining about McCain-Feingold, but it has evoked a significant response from Republicans. Do you honestly believe that's because we're more sleazy than the Democrats?

-- Interestingly enough, Gandhi, this has been a HUGE advantage for Republicans. Democrats miscalculated how much money they would lose. This was in the major papers when the fundraising started, but it's old news now. Here's a lefty pastor bemoaning the new laws (among other things). The Hill says, "After McCain-Feingold passed, a funny thing happened. The Democrats discovered they weren’t as good as Republicans are at raising hard money. At $2,000 per person, they could only come up with $66.5 million through the end of September of this year. In the same period, the Republicans raised $158 million." Even the conservative Washington Times reports "Republicans traditionally have outpaced Democrats at raising hard money, so Democrats have focused on raising soft money to make up the difference. As a result, Republicans say the soft-money ban hurts Democrats more. "For years, Democrats pretended that they wanted campaign finance reform, all while relying heavily on soft money," said the National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds of New York. He said yesterday's Supreme Court decision upholding key parts of the new law "breaks the Democrats' back." " Sorry, just wanted make sure you knew Gandhi was wrong - but back to his piece:

As your article states, the issue that needs to be addressed is those who don't donate on "ideological grounds, but for the express purpose of securing influence over federal officials". Some may argue that this led President Bush to implement the (very foolish) tariffs on steel that have recently come under so much controversy. With the WTO firing back with its own tariffs, the President has now hopefully learned his lesson.

-- Yup. And I would argue that the President is not "corrupt" in the classic sense (accepting bribes, etc). However, soft money contributors have always made sure that elected officials know who their daddy is, and that's a problem for the electorate. When money is more important than citizen opinion at delivering votes, a fundamental flaw exists, because elected officials interested in staying there do better if they pander to the big donors (unions, corporations, etc) than if they try to do what makes voters happy. And please don't go all Hamiltonian on me.

But that some special-interest money has an effect on the way politics is played out doesn't necessarily merit more laws and more restrictions on soft money. A certain level of pressure by businesses is healthy, as it reminds even the more liberal candidates that they can’t ignore businesses in their relentless quest to “feed the poor by taxing the rich”. Certainly individuals should not be subject to these soft-money rules. Some (limited) restrictions may need to be placed on corporations that abuse the system to gain government handouts from the politicians whom they support, damaging local and worldwide markets. But what we really need, rather than more laws, is more gutsy politicians that won't give in to corporate pressure. Perhaps any new laws should be directed at the recipients of campaign money, rather than to those who supply it.

-- Wow. Why didn't I think of that. I'll get on the phone with God right now about changing human nature! Where are we going to find incorruptible politicians? How are we going to know when we've found them?? Are you so naive as to think we haven't already done all we can to place legal limits on the recipients of campaign money???

Oh ye of little knowledge and lots of ideology.