McCain-Feingold - a Look Back

One of the most important sentences every written, is the First Amendment of the United States of America:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Please Support us by visiting our sponsors

Now that some time has passed, I find that there is not a lot of discussion about the court ruling on campaign finance law. I've seen some arguments but little real discussion. I do however find that some of these arguments about the overturn of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law of interest. The way I understand the intent of the law was to remove excessively large amount of money from going straight to candidates for political office and outside groups from influencing election outcomes. It was intended to keep the politicians "honest." These are worthy goals. But did it work? In the last election there were large amounts of money raised by politicians and for them. Outside organizations pumped millions of dollars into promoting various candidates and elected officials. Lobbyist still roam the hall of Congress and meet with members of the Administration daily. Many groups found ways to circumvent the law. The sudden growth of Political Action Committees (PACs) was accelerate and the 501(c) organizations were created by the law.

It seems that many were happy that the law restricted those "evil corporations" from making donations. A question that was dwelt upon was the question of defining money and free speech as equal. I feel that the other relevant section of "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" statement should be considered. Now I know that the petition part may seem a little dicey, but the limits place on campaign donations as a whole also restricts the ability of everyone to support or reject candidates. A really good way to petition the Government for a redress of grievances is to work to remove an offending elected official from office. Nothing says redress of grievance better than kicking them to the curb. This is not always possible or practical, but sometimes the only way to get true change is to get a change of face in the office.

Another argument is the fall back to the idea that not all speech is protected. It is true that you cannot shout "FIRE" in a crowded movie house. Of course it is not against the law to shout "MOVIE" in a crowded firehouse. It is also true that it is not illegal to shout "FIRE" in a movie house when there is a fire. In addition; how about it being illegal just 2 weeks before a date set on the calendar? The latter is the issue that caused the challenge to this law. It was because the law limited speech right before an election that put the courts and this law on a collision course. This was built on a house of cards, the resulting challenge put the entire law up for review. I remember that there was a lot of speculation when it passed that it would not pass Supreme Court muster. Well at least the "experts" had something right.

So what is my final view? I think that the law, like a lot of laws, was conceived with a lot of good intentions. But laws, just like locks, in the end only keep honest people honest. The dishonest will always look for ways to get around it. I'm sorry to say that I feel that it is hard to trust the people that caused the problem to solve it. Transparency in the campaign process would be the best route to keeping our leader's more responsive to the public. All campaign donation should be reported with donors prominently exposed to the light of day. Ads that support any campaign should be labeled plainly as to the company or person who is paying for the ad. If the public knows who is supporting a candidate it is much easier to decide if they're worthy of support. The fear that some company will dive in and smear a person running for office at the last minute is a concern. Of course as it has been seen in the past, you can simple release false information to "The Press" and let them do it for free.

So Mr. McCain and Mr Feingold I felt your law was misguided and unconstitutional from the beginning. I would like to see honest people in Washington, but I fear that your attempt at reform moved us in the wrong direction. Open and honest speech is what we need. Controls on speech is a dangerous road to go down and I'm glad to see the court returned some rights to the people. Well at least until the next time.

©2010 Pedro Sykes

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.