Re: Cold, hard reality (Money=free speech)

[Sally McCabe <rencabe@calweb.com>]

I learned of the 1974 Supreme Court Buckley v. Vallejo decision (money = free speech, i.e., our first amendment "right" to give money to candidates) by watching the current Senate debate on campaign finance reform on C-Span.  This Supreme Court decision seems to have created the current corrupting role of money in politics.  Many senators have been saying that the McCain-Feingold bill (limiting "soft money") will be found unconstitutional because the Buckley decision.  However, included in the decision is language saying that use of money can be limited if there is a compelling national interest in doing so.   It is self-evident that financial contributions create the appearance of corruption even if quid pro quo (sp?) cannot be proven.  If local, state and federal campaigns were publically financed and if airtime were free for debates moderated by non-partisan groups like the League of Women Voters, costly campaign ads (sham issue ads financed with soft money as well as the simplistic candidate ads paid for with hard money) would not be necessary and could be restricted because of the corrupting influence of the large contributions that are necessary for their financing. 

Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon introduced an amendment on Monday to prohibit members of Congress from accepting political contributions from lobbyists while Congress is in session (time and space regulation of "free speech" is constitutional) as is now the law in Oregon and other states (while their state legislatures are in session). The amendment was defeated by a vote of 74-25.  Too bad.  It seemed to compliment the restrictiion of campaign contributions by covering the time between campaigns when our elected officals are also susceptible to the corrupting influence of money.