RE: Choice 2: Checking our learning

[Joan Johnson <joan@altair.com>]

I learned there is a downside to initiatives. Michigan doesn't make use of the initiative process as does California and some other western states. It is pretty to think that ordinary citizens are somehow better able to construct legislation that serves the public than elected officials. I also learned that we are stymied as to how to encourage citizens to participate; lobbyists do some of this for us, if we are on the side of the lobby group, but even lobbying, paid or unpaid, has risks associated with it (drowning out the quiet voice of the majority). 

It would seem we favor pulling money out of the equation, but can't figure out how to do that and remain constitutionally correct. Since money became equated as freedom of speech, we are once again faced with the issue of how to allow the poor and disenfranchised an opportunity to speak. Who but some lobby groups speak for them?

The recent passage of the Wellstone amendment to McCain-Feingold's bill does not bode well for any progress made to reform a system that clearly has problems. The admendment, while good intentioned, has significant First Amendment problems that we have addressed in this forum. The opposition to campaign finance reform sees this amendment as a way out of dealing with this problem and maintain the status quo. If they are also successful in removing the severability clause from the bill, the whole measure will go down on the first court fight. I can hear the opposing groups lining up in the judicial halls.

While we may not agree about the content of another person's speech, we may not prohibit such speech. This is a conundrum of democracy, and one I would not eliminate. Like-think does not foster creative solutions to problems. Neither does undue influence. Since money equals free speech, let us consider not eliminating money but making bucket loads available to everyone. I think I could tolerate a national debt arising from efforts to make good legislative bills.