[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Guest Commentary March 25, 2002
Passing Campaign Finance Reform Is Big Step Forward
The Honorable Barbara Boxer
By passing campaign finance reform legislation, we are taking a big step forward in restoring the American people's confidence in our system of participatory democracy – the best system in the world. ...
I say that this is a step forward for two main reasons:
First, the bill bans soft money raised by national parties and federal candidates. ... Without it, you have a system where candidates canvass the country asking for huge soft money donations from one interest group or industry or another. And I am not talking about a $2,000 contribution, but about $25,000, $50,000 or more because there is no limit on these dollars – not until now.
Free Newsletter
Get the scoop on important legislation, Congressional action, election updates, hard-hitting political commentary, the latest developments in the War on Terror...and more! Just enter your email address below.
Privacy: Your name and email address will be confidential - never rented, never sold.
The limit on individual contributions to a candidate was passed in the 1970s precisely to ensure that a candidate was not asking for – and receiving – extremely large contributions from a handful of people. But the soft money loophole served to undermine that important principle and created a climate in which candidates were still free, indeed encouraged, to travel the country seeking huge contributions for their parties from powerful interests groups. Now those days are over. ...
Second, this bill bans the use of soft money for so-called "issue ads" within 60 days of a general election or within 30 days of a primary election. Now, I imagine that virtually every Senator has been the subject of such "issue ads" at one time or another -- ads which in reality are nothing more than eleventh hour attacks intended to sway undecided voters in the critical final days of a campaign. Huge, last minute infusions of soft money to finance such attacks can have a profound, and negative, effect on the outcome of an election. And the effect on already disillusioned voters is incalculable.
Taken together, these two provisions have strong merit.
However, I believe we must do more to clean up campaigns. We must make these hugely expensive campaigns a thing of the past.
I disagree with the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision. It must be revisited and, indeed, overturned.
To me, spending endless sums on campaigns does not equal free speech. To me, it harms the free speech of the less wealthy, the less well-financed candidate. So, limiting spending is my next priority.
Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, is a U.S. Senator from California. The above commentary has been adapted from a speech Sen. Boxer delivered on the floor of the Senate, March 20, 2002. To contact her, Click Here.
The above column has been distributed by PoliticsOL.com.
