RE: Conclusion: Individual Reflections

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

On March 19, when I entered this discussion, I brought with me the views of a liberal (no surprise to any of you who have read my postings), with hopes of reforming the Campaign Finance system, to limit the influence of corporations and special interests, and wealthy donors. I fretted about the direction I could see the debate about CFR in the Senate taking, and feared  that the result of any passage of a McCain-Feingold Bill would only result in the "majority's interests" being upheld, at the expense of the "minority's." That McCain-Feingold would root out and isolate union contributions, by focusing too much on enacting "paycheck protections," without addressing where the "majority" party gets it's campaign funding. I worried about any reforms taking the direction of unfairly hamstringing one party's ability to raise funds, without making a dent in the other's. That was pretty much the focus I brought with me.

Through interaction, and reading of the very thoughtful postings of the other contributors, I now view CFR as a MUCH more complex issue. As we all came to grips with Choices 1, 2 and 3, my understanding of the breadth and depth and scope of Campaign Finance Reform was broadened. I was forced to deal with the debate about First Amendment Rights, with the debate over Initiative/referendum/Recall. 

I was called upon to think about the proposed "free air-time" that I favored, from the perspective of WHO PAYS for free air time? 

In my willingness and extreme desire to see Campaign Finance Reform through to successful passage, I believed that ALL Lobbies/PACS would have to be eliminated, even those which represented MY interests, a sort of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" intervention that I saw as the only possible solution. Thru discussion, I began to realize that it could be possible to preserve PUBLIC interest groups, while aiming to regulate money and gift contributions from PRIVATE (corporate) interest groups. That seemed a better compromise to me. 

In my anger over the "spoiler effect" Nader had wrought on the 2000 election, I came into the discussion "Third parties, be DAMNED!" I couldn't care less about 3rd parties being shut out of the process. But thru interaction with the group, I realized that this is a very valid issue, how 3rd party and challenger candidates get their "piece of the pie," and it forced me to think about something I may not have thought about otherwise.

>From Al Kolwicz, I learned that it could be possible for our legislators to develop a method of communication, via advanced technology, that could place them back in their home districts, and make them more accessible to their constituents, yet allow them to legislate effectively. Never had thought much about that before.

With other participants, I explored the possible reasons for/solutions to voter apathy, and how this factors into the equation of CFR, and how reforming our elections laws to be more INCLUSIVE could help to increase voter participation.

I understand more now about full disclosure, and how, in and of itself, without reform, it would offer little more than a "Band-Aid," and is not really a workable solution.

I was drawn into a discussion of the attitude expressed by some, that it was all hopeless, and nothing meaningful could be accomplished by CFR that would CHANGE and already corrupt system. 

So, how did all this change me? I guess I would have to say that I still hold the same opinion, but I have become more educated on the issue, and more knowledgeable about how others, with views different from mine, view CFR. And I respect their opinions. It broadened my whole frame of reference about CFR. It encouraged me, to see others actively involved in the discussion, hashing over the possibilities, and gave me hope that maybe something really IS going to be done that addresses the money and influence and corruption of campaign financing.