From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 01:02:13 GMT
All,
Normally I stay away from political discussions on this forum, but I thought I'd add my general (though whole-hearted) agreement with the thoughts conveyed by Scott, DMB, and Andy about money and Iraq. The only reason I'm writing now is to offer what I think are clarifications about the McCain-Feingold bill (which makes me proud to live in Wisconsin).
Scott said:
the McCain-Feingold bill actually increased the amount an individual could contribute to a campaign (hard money), from $1000 to $2000. The $1000 restriction has been in place for decades (I think). What the bill does that has the ACLU and National Rifle Association in bed together is restrict how much so-called soft money, they can use to influence a campaign, so the bill is a restriction on the use of money by special interests, while individuals have been restricted for some time.
Matt:
That's moreorless right. I'll explain why "less" below.
DMB said:
The law only disallows such organizations from advertising on the eve of elections; I think 30 days bfore a primary and 60 days before a general election. Or maybe its the other way around.
Matt:
Partial yes to the restriction on advertising close to the election (though I can't remember which way around it goes either) and no to the "only" part. If I understand correctly, the restriction on advertising consists not only of the previous ban on the "magic words" ("vote for," "vote against," etc.), which is a restriction at all times, but also expands to a prohibition on mentioning a candidates name or showing his/her image right before the election. So-called "issue advocacy" advertisements are still fair game.
The most important part of the bill is its ban on soft _party_ money. This is what has the interest groups up in arms. The deal is, interest groups can still give money to the candidates campaigns. This is (I think) considered hard money and (I know) is restricted (they can give something like $17,500 per candidate per campaign (primary and general elections count as separate campaigns), as opposed to the $2,000 individuals can give). Interest goups can also still create issue advocacy advertisements with the restrictions mentioned above, mainly because restrictions on issue advocacy looks a lot more like restrictions on free speech. And I tend to agree.
What they can't do is give infinite amounts of money to the _parties_. The original campaign finance laws from the 70s left open how much money a party could raise and spend. The intention was to allow parties to spend this money on getting the word out to vote, raise awareness of issues, and other local, grassroots kinds of things. This provision turned into a monster. It allowed interest groups to give as much money as they wanted to the parties and the parties could then spend as much money as they wanted on behalf of the candidate (the restriction being that the creation of these ads could not be in collusion with the candidates campaign team, the same restriction on interest groups ads).
There are two problems with this soft money: A) we accept restrictions on the amount of money given to canidates campaigns. So the question is, should we really be distinguishing all that heavily between the money spent by the candidate and the money spent by the party? Why would we restrict one and not the other, considering that the candidate is moreorless an extension of his/her party? and B) it is much easier to see how giving money to the parties (as opposed to issue advocacy) counts as bribery. Again, we already accept restrictions on the amount of money we can give to a candidate. The money given is thinly veiled bribery, but we restrict it given to the candidate, so why not the party?
Okay, I think my clarifications of the law are moreorless right (naturally, I also think my spin on the reasoning behind the law is also true). And I hope so because I just finished untangling the whole thing for my students that I just finished tutoring for their Poli Sci final.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 15 2003 - 01:23:20 GMT