Great Skills, but Twisted Intent – A Defeat of Campaign Reform
Fred Barnes writing in the Weekly Standard praises Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell’s superior political skills:
Mitch McConnell runs rings around Harry Reid. McConnell’s first major venture in exploiting minority rights in the Senate came in 1994 when Democrats still had a majority. A campaign finance reform bill that would have imposed public financing on congressional races had passed both houses of Congress. McConnell consulted Senate secretary Elizabeth Letchworth to find out if there were any options left to block the legislation.
Letchworth told him three motions must be passed before conferees can be dispatched to iron out differences between the Senate and House bills. But of course nobody had ever filibustered those motions before, and she recommended against breaking new ground. That didn’t stop McConnell. He succeeded in blocking the second motion. The bill died. Six weeks later, Republicans captured the Senate and House in the 1994 landslide.
I am depressed that we got so close to a major reduction in the influence of money on Congress but that McConnell used his talent and skill to protect special interests and corruption. I am disappointed that most major Presidential candidates are forgoing public campaign financing to avoid the limits on their own fund raising. I read today in the New York Times how lobbyists and Congressfolk are already figuring out how to end run the new limits on special interest gifts and funding.
I am having trouble grasping how our Representatives can engage in thoughtful deliberation about issues related to our survival and wellbeing when they have to spend most of their time pandering to donors who will support them in exchange for favoritism over the rest of us, who are not able to match the ante.
All of the Political Candidates who clamor for our attention might consider taking responsibility for advancing a meaningful issue like campaign reform and proving to us that they are the representatives of the voters not the donors.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “Great Skills, but Twisted Intent – A Defeat of Campaign Reform”
I will say it for the 10,000,000 time. Our representatives may say one thing but in the end its about 3 things. Power, wealth and greed.
None of them would be there if there was no power, wealth and greed to be had. They thrive on it. Its their drug of choice and they cant get enough of it.
Its so bad that A certain senator defeated in the primary ran as an Independent so he could continue to have his fix of power. They will never reform campaign spending because the ones that have to reform it are the ones that stand the most to lose. The incumbnents have all the advantages in an election.
Why anyone EVER……EVER believes that politicans will do all these wonderful Moderate, bipartisan, KUMBYEAHH stuff they promise when running for office is beyond me. Nancy Pelosi promising to be this Saint and to show up them Republicans is as funny as Newt Gingrich promising the same thing. UH HUH.
The only real ones I can think of that did try hard to do what they promised were never reelected because the rest of their fellow congress cronies ganged up on them and made sure they didnt come back.
Paul,
I agree that you that it’s kind of sad for politicians employ such parlimentary tactics.
On the other hand, the problem with public financing is that is forces us to subsidize the campaigns of politicians.
Would you rather have a government that represents you and spends your taxes wisely or would you rather not pay for their campaigns and have a government that gives your money to special interets and lobbying groups?
I agree a thousand percent that campaign reforem is desperately needed. I have no idea, though, how to achieve it.
Unfortunately, lobbyists are defended by those who see this as a free speech issue; according to them, donors and lobbyists are just exercising free speech.
What is the counter argument to the free speech arguemtn?
Campaign reform, radical campaign reform is desperately needed, but almost impossible to achieve, for the reasons stated by UIS; the ones in charge of enacting them are the ones least interested in doing so.
It would require near revolution to achieve something like that. The only way I can see it working is if every voter promised to vote against any incumbent that didn’t fight for campaign reform. I don’t care if they are a bloody saint otherwise. If in 4 years they’ve done nothing about reform or worse, have blocked it, vote against them, vote for someone new. It would have to be done by everyone. Republicans would have to be willing to vote for democrats and vice-versa. I think it would only take one election cycle or at the most two. If 50 senators were suddenly out of a job one day the new ones and the ones up for re-election next might finally decide that a lesser job is better than no job.
For me the free speech issue is one the Supreme Court needs to reconcile with the original intent of elections. To me an election is for people to choose their representative in government. They are not a vehicle for outside special interests to buy a vote in Congress.
My humble proposal is that at least 85% of contributions for campaigns and third party efforts must come from established individual residents in the district. No Unions or Corporations.
Public Finance of campaigns might provide most of the campaign funds if the candidates reach some minimum threshold of petition signatures or fund raising for individual donors.
I am coming to believe that any elected official or candidate that is not committed to purifying the election system is part of the problem
This is one of the main reasons I have regard for McCain. At least he used his political capital to try to correct the system.
[...] Paul Silver writes at The Moderate Voice – Great Skills, but Twisted Intent – A Defeat of Campaign Reform I am depressed that we got so close to a major reduction in the influence of money on Congress but that McConnell used his talent and skill to protect special interests and corruption. I am disappointed that most major Presidential candidates are forgoing public campaign financing to avoid the limits on their own fund raising. I read today in the New York Times how lobbyists and Congressfolk are already figuring out how to end run the new limits on special interest gifts and funding. [...]
This is one of the main reasons I have regard for McCain. At least he used his political capital to try to correct the system.
Paul- on the front page of today’s WaPo, there’s an article detailing how McCain has chosen not to abide by his own reforms in his ’08 presidential bid.
Just about a year and a half ago, Sen John McCain went to court to try to curtail the influence of a group to which A. Jerrold Perenchio gave $9 million, saying it was trying to “evade and violate ” new campaign laws with voter ads ahead of the midterm elections.
As McCain launches his own presidential campaign, however, he is counting on Perenchio…..to raise millions of dollars as co-chairman of the Arizona Republican’s national finance committee.
In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment he has frequently bucked, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures, forces and tactics he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors , fundraisers and lobbyists in elections.
I read that article about McCain passing on the Public Campaign Financing and while I understand why he did it, it still disappoints me.
Nevertheless McCain has gone further and risked more than almost all other representatives to tackle the issue.
What about the 527 issue? The more you try to control the money that flows into official campaigns, the more you force it into these other channels and that’s even worse because it provides plausible deniability for candidates to use smear tactics.
I don’t know the answer, but public financing and campaign limits don’t seem to solve it at all and may in fact make it worse. It’s like any other undesirable activity- try to ban it and you force it underground where you have even less control over it.