|
It is extremely ironic that Tim Dragga would use a pro-bono American Civil Liberties Union lawyer as an example of someone who, under the current system of wealth-influenced politics, would not have as much influence as a Fortune 500 executive in a federal election. The ACLU vehemently opposes the Shays-Meehan Bill. To quote from the ACLU’s letter to our Congressional representatives: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that only express advocacy, narrowly defined, can be subject to campaign finance controls. Shays-Meehan redefines express advocacy in a way that covers our legitimate speech, which is not telling voters to vote for or against a particular candidate. If we dare applaud, criticize or even mention a candidate’s name during this 30 day/60 day ‘blackout’ period, we would have to create a PAC where donor names would have to be disclosed to the FEC in a way never before upheld by the courts.” Also, Tom Daniels’ concern does not appear to be those who are able to buy, as an individual citizen, “advertising time during the World Series or putting up $100,000 in soft money donations.” Rather, he lists several disparate groups as examples of those who would be silenced immediately prior to a federal election. Clearly, his concern is not with millionaires, but rather with groups in which pooled funds and donations provide a collective voice for those who otherwise might not be represented. Indeed, Daniels does not once mention or even allude to soft money, but instead focuses on the proposed silencing of such groups. Soft money is a red herring— the common cause that finds the ACLU in bed with the National Rifle Association, American Association of Retired Person, National Association for the Advancement of Colored Persons, National Right to Life Committee, La Raza, etc. is to protect against the government’s attempt to silence potential critics. — Brian
Coddington, |
|
|
TCU Daily Skiff © 2002 |
||
