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.

Congress 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 Congress repealed and replaced the "Corrupt Practices Act" (which in itself speaks volumes) with the "Federal Election Campaign Act" (FECA) in 1971.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"

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>