Opinions from around the country

The U.S. House of Representatives will vote today on one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in recent times. While the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill has necessary provisions to prevent the deleterious effects of large campaign contributions on the integrity of the political process, the bill prohibits free speech and therefore the House should not pass it.

At the center of Shays-Meehan is a ban on unregulated soft money contributions to national political candidates. From 1992 to 2000, soft money donations ballooned from $86 million to $500 million. The influence of wealthy organizations corrodes the political system. Drug benefits, energy policy and the patients’ bill of rights are all issues in which corporations, not individual voters, have dominated the debate.

Through soft money, powerful groups are given unfair access to candidates and can unduly influence their decisions. This subversion of the general public’s interest for the interests of the well connected and affluent should be prevented.

Shays-Meehan also contains a ban on issue advertisements during the final 60 days before an election. These ads are a necessary part of politics that raise public awareness of candidates and encourage individuals to actively take part in their government through voting. During the final period of an election it is essential that advocacy groups have the right to disseminate information concerning the records of candidates.

While the issue ad restriction is inherently unjust, the Supreme Court has ruled that issue advocacy must have the highest degree of protection under the First Amendment. A 1974 ruling struck down a similar restriction, illustrating this distinction. “Unlike contributions and expenditures made solely with a view to influencing the nomination or election of a candidate, issue discussions unwed to the cause of a particular candidate hardly threaten the purity of the elections.”

A rejection of Shays-Meehan would substantially delay the passage of campaign finance reform legislation and could result in the end of efforts for the necessary legislation. Nonetheless, the restrictions on free speech and the right to advocate for one's cause must not be codified into federal law. To do so would seriously limit the rights of all to take part in the political discourse of this nation.

This editorial comes from the Michigan Daily at the University of Michigan.
This column was distributed by U-Wire.

credits

TCU Daily Skiff © 2002