Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | News Flashes | Scoop Features | Scoop Video | Strange & Bizarre | Search

 


Stateside: Putting Your Back Pocket Into It

Stateside With Rosalea: Putting Your Back Pocket Into It

For someone like me, who comes from a country where a political candidate risks censure for 'treating' prospective voters by throwing a couple of snarlers on the barbie, the huge amounts of money that are spent on political campaigns here in the States are mind-boggling. I am not alone. At a fundraising event for the solar power and city-owned utility propositions on last November's ballot in San Francisco, a French woman who stepped up to the microphone to pledge $1000 said she did so because she felt sorry for Americans that they had to beg for democracy.

So it is that this week's biggest news - "revolution" was the word used in one headline - was the passing by the House of Representatives of the Shays-Meehan bill on campaign finance reform. It is the companion bill to the one already passed by the Senate, sponsored by McCain and Feingold. The two bills have some slight differences, so the next step is to see if those differences can be accommodated easily or if the debate will be moved behind the closed doors of the Conference Committee. If it ever comes out of there, the bill will go to the President for approval or veto.

But wait, there could be more! In 1976 two senators brought suit against the Secretary of the US Senate, and others, challenging the provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act 1971 as amended. (Along with the 1907 Act that banned campaign contributions by banks and corporations, the FECA post-Watergate amendments are a milestone in US attempts to rescue federal elections from the hands of the "fat cats".) The case ended up in the US Supreme Court where the Court decided that the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his or her personal funds were constitutionally defective. Ipso facto, fatso catso!

Now, I'm sure that if you're interested in politics and campaigning you know more about this than I do, or at least have seen some pretty graphics in a weekly magazine somewhere explaining the ins and outs of hard and soft money. It is actually a very complex issue that unfortunately lends itself to "the monism of a morality play, one with a simple plot, boldly defined characters, and an elemental struggle of good and evil that engages its audience in unquestioning belief", as Frank Souraf said in his book 'Inside Campaign Finance'.

"Unquestioning belief", of course, must be cultivated. It doesn't spring up spontaneously. Ironically, one of the things that most cultivates the unquestioning belief that the US has "the best Congress money can buy" are the very arguments for AND against the role of money in election campaigns. The underlying assumption of both sides of the argument is that money is what makes the difference. Yet "politics" comes from a Greek word that means "citizen" and democracy from a word that means "people". And a ballot paper represents a series of choices a person has to make. There is something insulting about assuming there is a direct correlation between the choices people make and the amount of money spent on convincing them to make that choice.

The reason incumbents are so often re-elected here in the States is that they have established a network of PEOPLE. Whether those people are donating money or not, it is their participation in the election campaign that matters. And the important thing that campaign finance buys is time. Not just time on the airwaves, but the time to meet people and talk to them. You just need to look at the occupations of members of Congress to recognise that for a fact - there ain't too many shopkeepers or sharecroppers, but there's an overabundance of lawyers, who can organise their work around themselves instead of around their businesses or the weather.

Yes, money is an issue. It has been dealt with in Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont by having publicly funded "clean election" laws. I'd call them "slightly soiled" myself, as they still rely on the candidate raising money in the first place to be eligible for public funds, but that money has to be raised in small amounts from the registered voters in their districts, making the candidate responsible to local people rather than to distant corporate benefactors.

Television air time is an issue. In this week's 'Asian Week', columnist Phil Tajitsu Nash asks: "Who gave away our nation's television airwaves in the 1950s, so that candidates must impoverish themselves and become beholden to big money interests in order to buy television ads during the last weeks of the campaign season? The airwaves should be public property, retained for use during the campaign season for airing informational items at no cost to federal, state and local candidates."

It's not only the issues of free speech (the constitutional right that the Supreme Court said, back in 1976, was violated by FECA) and campaign finance that are important in making a revolutionary, lasting change in the way democracy is conducted (as opposed to orchestrated) in the United States. There are many other voting rights issues that need to be attended to.

But then I would say that. Yesterday I went up one too many steps in hilly SF or bent over to pick up one too many dropped doorhangers touting Proposition A - instant run-off voting - to think my pain has been in vain. Talk about putting your back into it!

Lea Barker
California
Sunday 17 January, 2002

www.asianweek.com


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 

Werewolf: Living With Rio’s Olympic Ruins

Mariana Cavalcanti Critics of the Olympic project can point a discernible pattern in the delivery of Olympics-related urban interventions: the belated but rushed inaugurations of faulty and/or unfinished infrastructures... More>>

Live Blog On Now: Open Source//Open Society Conference

The second annual Open Source Open Society Conference is a 2 day event taking place on 22-23 August 2016 at Michael Fowler Centre in Wellington… Scoop is hosting a live blog summarising the key points of this exciting conference. More>>

ALSO:

Buildup:

Gordon Campbell: On The Politicising Of The War On Drugs In Sport

It hasn’t been much fun at all to see how “war on drugs in sport” has become a proxy version of the Cold War, fixated on Russia. This weekend’s banning of the Russian long jumper Darya Klishina took that fixation to fresh extremes. More>>

ALSO:

Binoy Kampmark: Kevin Rudd’s Failed UN Secretary General Bid

Few sights are sadder in international diplomacy than seeing an aging figure desperate for honours. In a desperate effort to net them, he scurries around, cultivating, prodding, wishing to be noted. Finally, such an honour is netted, in all likelihood just to shut that overly keen individual up. More>>

Open Source / Open Society: The Scoop Foundation - An Open Model For NZ Media

Access to accurate, relevant and timely information is a crucial aspect of an open and transparent society. However, in our digital society information is in a state of flux with every aspect of its creation, delivery and consumption undergoing profound redefinition... More>>

Keeping Out The Vote: Gordon Campbell On The US Elections

I’ll focus here on just two ways that dis-enfranchisement is currently occurring in the US: (a) by the rigging of the boundary lines for voter districts and (b) by demanding elaborate photo IDs before people are allowed to cast their vote. More>>

Ramzy Baroud: Being Black Palestinian - Solidarity As A Welcome Pathology

It should come as no surprise that the loudest international solidarity that accompanied the continued spate of the killing of Black Americans comes from Palestine; that books have already been written and published by Palestinians about the plight of their Black brethren. In fact, that solidarity is mutual. More>>

ALSO:


Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Top Scoops
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news