RE: Conclusion: Individual Reflections

[Joan Johnson <joan@altair.com>]

Initially I had a strong desire to have campaign finance reform primarily because I am sick and tired of the landslide of slick, emotion-laid tv ads that smog a campaign rather than clarify the issues and of the percieved connection between legislation and the special interest groups that fund candidates that support legislation that does not seem to represent the common people.

I have learned via this forum about the connection to the free speech issue and while I am uncomfortable about money being equated to free speech this issue appears to be one that will stay around.

I have assumed that the major newspapers and other news sources print the facts, naively I'm afraid. I forgot about the news programs that are really a blend of entertainment and news (the Today Show for example) and how hard it is for the viewers to catch the line where the facts stop and the personal biases of the staff of the program begins. I've recognized the two-way dialog that enters into what the news programs call a "discussion of the issue" when, as I have learned here, most issues have many faces and many reasonable points of view.

What I initially thought - if we just limit the amount of money any person/organization can contribute - seemed so easy to do. Just cap it! Well, many people feel that this would limit free speech, an issue I hadn't looked at that way before.

I also thought that the three choices were just that, individual choices and I have come to realize this is not the case nor should it be with an issue as complicated as finance reform is. Not only is monetary donations part of it, but also spending, and a host of issues that broaden the talk to campaigns in general (equal access to voting, the same ballot, etc). 

I didn't think much about choice 2 - reining in the lobbyists would help. I still think that. If I deny one group a chance to speak out about their issues, I must also deny myself. This is one of the tricky things about being a democracy. Every one, every group has the right to say what they feel regardless if I personally think their views are reprehensible. This is a good thing - speaking out - and having the right to do so unencumbered by restraints from the government.

However, gifts to candidates must be regulated from whomever they come from.

I am surprised how many people share ideas similar to mine. We differ sometimes on the "how" but we see the need to fix problems within the campaign financing system. The how part is always the most difficult. I hope we can come to some middle ground on those issues.

One area that we have consistently brought up is the use of the Internet for keeping track of information about candidates and contributions. While it is true that libraries have access, this still leaves out many people who can't get to a library or because there are crowds at the few access points there are can't get in. Perhaps in the next 5 years access won't be a problem. Until 90% have access, we need to think of a way to diseminate the information that augments on-line access.

Joan