So Long McCain-Feingold, We Hardly Knew Ye

Mr. Rendel, my dear fellow (and far more prolific) Lift Bridges contributor, I’d like to start an open conversation with you about campaign finance and the role of money in politics, and what we as concerned citizens and Democrats can do about it. I hope you don’t think me too forward; I also hope that our Gentle Readership will chime in.

Following close on the heels of Martha Coakley’s defeat in the Massachusetts special Senate election, it’s almost hard to spare tears for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn key points of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance act, and indeed virtually any limits on campaign spending. Campaign finance must be one of the least sexy topics in American Politics, and yet nothing has more impact on who gets elected and what kind of lawmaking they do while in office. Today’s ruling will affect the lives of ordinary people, and their right to speak up and be heard, in a big way.

In my mind, there’s obvious irony about the Supreme Court’s majority decision, written by Anthony Kennedy, that limiting campaign contributions is the equivalent of stomping on free speech. Campaign rhetoric costs money, including posters plastered on buildings and in windows, tacky neon yard signs and campaign fliers that flutter out when you open your front screen door.  Smear ads on radio and television cost lots and lots of money to run. So, it’s hard to argue that this type of speech is ‘free.’ The money does the talking.

The New York Times reports that Justice Stevens, in his minority dissent, wrote that “the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.” Anyone who’s seen the frightening documentary, The Corporation, will immediately grasp this as true. But even if corporate giants weren’t sociopaths, it comes down to a basic issue of fairness: now, companies that have hundreds of millions in the bank set aside to influence elections will compete with ordinary people, who may, if they’re lucky and motivated, be able to contribute $50 or $100 to the candidate whom they feel will best represent them.

What does this all add up to? Your rights, your childrens’ education, your air quality, your clean lakes and rivers, your healthcare, your labor rights, get sold down the river for the cost of a campaign flier.

Brian, I wanted to draw you into this conversation because a few nights ago you Tweeted about something like a POTUS Tracker for every elected official. Basically, track their every move as elected officials to find out who they’re meeting with and when and why. I like this idea as far as it goes, though the Big Brother aspect of it does bother me tremendously. My larger issue, though, is that I’m worried this kind of political involvement is out of reach for most Americans. Who has the kind of time to track both their state and national representatives, senators; their mayors, governors and county commissioners?

I’m very interested to know what you think about this — you and anyone else who happens to be reading.

Be Sociable, Share!

•