Let the People Decide

This month, a report appeared in the LP News describing, what appears to be an attempt by members of the Democratic Party to enact campaign reform. This, riding in the wake of the Abramhoff scandal, shows how low some elected officials will go to silence their political opposition. What was drafted and introduced, can only be seen as a direct attack on the efforts of non-incumbent political parties. I was asked to give my opinion on this piece of legislation. In researching the bill, it befuddles me to comprehend its author’s intent.

The bill at question is H.R.4694 introduced by Mr. Obey (D-WI), and ironically titled Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act. One thing is for sure. If this bill were enacted, The People would be faced with less of a decision on Election Day. Their choices would be between the decadent (D) and reprobated (R). How can this equate to giving the people a choice?

This bill would be funded on a voluntary basis (Section 6097 IRC 1986) by the taxpayer. The government would then allocate the funds in a skewed manor that insures that the minor political parties or independents never gain prominence and can never be a threat to the status quo.

As minor party candidates rarely exceed 5% of the popular vote, the candidate could never receive or spend more than 5% of total expenses in the race. In most cases, minor party candidates receive less than 1% of the popular vote. Even in the “wealthiest” districts, while the “major” party candidates are allowed to spend over $750,000.00, the minor candidate can only spend between $15,000-75,000.

Mind you, private funds would no longer be allowed. Therefore if a district were “under-funded,” it is perceivable that the minor party candidate would receive little or no funds at all. Let us be honest, unless you spend equivalent to or at least in the ballpark of your opponent, you’re not likely to win a race or have a major impact.

If this bill were to become law, it would surely face many legal challenges, as it is clearly unconstitutional. Not to worry though, the author has provided for such a contingency. If the law is deemed unconstitutional, then a constitutional amendment is put on fast track for ratification. It is bad enough that a lawmaker is introducing a bill that blatantly violates the first amendment, but the author knows this to be the case, and is preparing to weaken the first amendment as a result. How then would the House of Representatives be any different than the former USSR, Communist China or Cuba? Need only state “approved” parties with state "approved" agendas apply?

Although I have never believed that the exchange of capital equated to speech, I also understand that restricting political views by, in essence, outlawing its dissemination is also morally wrong. Considering that the author and all of the bill’s sponsors are members of the Democratic Party, one must wonder why they feel so threatened by minor parties and independent candidates. Considering the GOP's apparent contention that all political descent is criminal, one would think that Democrats would reach out to other parties.

Perhaps Mr. Obey intended to end the corruptive influence that multi-national corporations, foreign governments and big business PACs have on the political process today. Perhaps Mr. Obey intended to offer an honorable solution to what is largely perceived as a house filled with avarice and depravity. Whatever the case may be, I hope that Mr. Obey understands that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If providing more choice is the desire of the bill's author, then start by leveling the playing field. End the tax funded subsidies provided to the "major" parties. No voter should object to ending oligarchic welfare.