No

by Earl Mcgill

Created on: April 11, 2009

The shortest, shoot-from-the-hip answer to the question, "Should the U. S. Government Help Finance Election Campaigns," NO, is solidly supported by the majority of American citizens. As of now, Helium's straw poll, though small, shows 69% opposed to government-financed political campaigns. This disparity is also an accurate reflection of larger, more scientific polls. In a democratic society that often votes in its leaders by a slender one percent margin, a whopping 38% should render the question moot.

The question also flies in the face of historical precedent. In 1847, the "Naval Appropriations Bill" was enacted to prohibit government from soliciting contributions from naval yard workers. Sixteen years later, the bill was expanded to include Civil Service. Prior to enactment, workers either contributed or lost their jobs.

Unfortunately, the Naval Appropriations Bill began a process that led to the mess we're in today. With the dawn of the Industrial Age, corporations literally began buying candidates to support their agendas. The situation became so bad, that in 1905 President Theodore Roosevelt pushed to forbid contributions by corporations for any political purpose. However, like most political canons, TR's included a loophole that allowed campaign contributions from the individuals who ran corporations. Since then, there have been no less than thirteen Acts passed by Congress, none of them without loopholes that made nearly all of them unenforceable.

Congre ss was given the power to enforce campaign finance with the 1925 "Corrupt Practices Act-" another instance of foxes guarding hen houses. Congress repealed and replaced the "Corrupt Practices Act" (which in itself speaks volumes) with the "Federal Election Campaign Act" (FECA) in 1971. Amendments to FECA included the voluntary one-dollar check-off on federal income tax returns and tax deductions for individual political purposes, a provision eliminated in 1986. Since then, a multitude of FECA Amendments have been so convoluted and riddled with loopholes that it is virtually impossible for a candidate to conduct a campaign without violating some aspect of the finance laws.

Although FECA has been challenged for containing provisions that violate free speech, the Supreme Court has supported the full scope of the act, including the President's authority to appoint all six FECA commissioners.

In spite of endless legislation, evidence supplied by the Hoover Institution's "Public Policy Inquiry on Campaign Finance" indicates that corruption is as prevalent as ever. And, in yet another example of the law of unintended consequences, the so-called reforms have also trampled grassroots involvement, First Amendment rights, and made it extremely difficult to unseat those already in office.

Our most notable, recent campaign finance reform crusader, Senator John McCain, once declared that he was ready to "bloody the floor of the Senate until they accede to the demands of the people." The unexpressed accusation behind McCain's "reform" was that candidates themselves benefited, that they somehow pocketed this loot, either in perks or in future benefits. While his ideas read well and made terrific sound bites, the plan was basically flawed and surely misdirected. The problem was (and is), what McCain ascribed to the people, i.e. to end "legal bribery" posing as fund raising, was, at its core, an idea he promoted during his own campaignsHIS idea. The fact that virtually all campaign donations wound up in the coffers of the very people who were ballyhooing McCain's plan was never mentioned.

It's no wonder the Media fell in love with McCain's proposals. In all of his fuss over campaign financing, what was not reported was that they (the Media) are the true beneficiaries of all campaign largesse.

Instead of questioning their own enormous profit at the expense of good government, they focus on dollar amounts versus time and other irrelevancies.

The bottom line that we are never shown is that the Media itself ultimately benefits from political campaign spending. Taking into account the Media's overwhelming influence, the enormous amounts spent on campaign advertising should be construed as de facto bribery.

For real reform, the Media should either provide free campaign advertising, equally across the board for all opposing candidates. As an alternative, paid campaign advertising should be banned in its entirety. Most Americans would probably prefer the latter. Who doesn't get sick of the endless stream of absolutely meaningless campaign ads cluttering our mailboxes, disrupting our television schedules, and polluting our street corners?

In a land dominated by Media, we can't expect them to endorse such a costly move, yet we can hope and maybe even pray that the Internet will someday supplant the existing Media with free and equal access to all.

Learn more about this author, Earl Mcgill.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.