Who does election reforms protect?
It is not that often that I regard a newspaper article, or opinion column, as very important to read. This week I was lucky enough to see two. The first, and probably the more famous, is the series of articles about the Vice President Cheney. I’m still reading it and I will probably have something to say about it when I’m done. The second one is an opinion column published today in the Wall Street Journal by Professor Bradley Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
The column discuss, briefly, the history of the limits the legislatures imposed on political expression - starting from the original sin:
This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first federal campaign-finance law, the Tillman Act. Named for its sponsor, South Carolina Democratic Sen. Ben Tillman, the act banned corporate contributions to federal campaigns, and as such remains the backbone of federal campaign-finance regulations. "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman advocated lynching black voters and had a big hand in establishing Jim Crow. His law fit neatly with his segregationist agenda, since corporate "money power" primarily backed anti-segregationist Republican politicians.
But it not only historical account but an examination of how it is used to block certain views and, most importantly, how it is dangerously block participation of regular citizens:
"I have come to doubt that the masses of the people have sense enough to govern themselves," wrote Ben Tillman, the founder of federal campaign-finance reform, in 1916. Many years later, in 1997, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt famously described the battle over campaign-finance reform as "two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can’t have both."
Many a tax- and regulation-prone politician, stymied by real political debate, would agree with both men. But Norm Feck and his Parker North neighbors, the Texas dentist facing $30,000 in fines, and tens of thousands of NASCAR fans realize that free speech is not a bar to healthy democracy, but is its cornerstone. It’s imperative that we speak up to defend freedom of speech — before that very speaking up becomes impossible.
Technorati Tags: Freedom of Speech, Government Regulations, Election Reform
blog comments powered by Disqus
Add New Comment
Viewing 2 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I wasn't arguing about the ability of people to participate in the actual governing, or about "direct democracy", or even about the complexity of modern governments - Although you know that we disagree about the the conclusion derive from the agreed observation. What I was writing about, or mostly recommending reading, was about the reasons behind and the results of the various elections reform.
The article that I referred to argues that :
1. The motive, and practice, of the election reforms is to prevent access from political groups. And while modern democracy isn't about direct governing it is aiming to provide equal access.
2. While the various reforms claim to prevent special interest groups (or wealthier groups) they are preventing participation of ordinary citizens - not only in the federal level but also in the local level.
I hoped that I cleared the issue, and I really recommend reading the article.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks