(Dan Chudzinski)
The 2004 presidential election was the first time when political candidates had to run campaigns in accordance with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill after its two primary sponsors. BCRA attempted to address three issues: The role of soft money in campaign financing; the proliferation of issue advertisements; and disturbing campaign practices during the federal elections of 1996, in which Democrats funneled money to the campaign from Asian sources with the assistance of the People's Republic of China. While not perfect, BCRA has taken a step in the right direction to make monetary donations more transparent and also to limit the influence of money on elections.
Unsupervised soft money contributions welcome the chances for political corruption, with large donors or corporations donating to a campaign in the expectation of returned favors. BCRA attempts to eliminate this corrupt bargaining between large, wealthy special interests and candidates. Policy should be determined on what is best for the country and all of a politician's constituents, not just a small ultra wealthy segmentof them.
Even worse, most of this soft money was spent on issue ads, which, while not specifically arguing for or against the election of a candidate essentially did just that. Since these ads were run using unregulated, unreported and potentially unlimited money, candidates could essentially defeat their opponents simply by deluding television with such attack ads. These ads distract the American public from actual issues and turn our elections into media circuses.
Unfortunately, in the 2004 election, candidates used a loophole where groups known as 527's were formed. Examples of these from 2004 are MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. These groups could not coordinate their efforts with any campaigns but they could take soft money contributions and run issue ads. Congress should act to ban 527's and limit the undue influence they can have on campaigns.
The primary argument made against campaign finance reform is that it is a curtailment of free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court in the case McConnell v. FEC has already rejected this argument, upholding the BCRA. They determined that money is property, not speech. Additionally, the ability for individuals to speak out on their beliefs of which candidate should be elected or which policies they prefer. It simply limits their ability to use money, which is their property not speech, to influence election outcomes.
The influence of money can have destabilizing effects on campaigns. Those candidates who are not a part of the mainstream party system are pushed to the sideline since they cannot match the fund-raising capabilities of other big name candidates. The significant amount of soft money donations also are used simply for pitiful attack ads that do not advance political debate in the country. The interest of having elected officials who are focused on real political policies to fix our nations problems and who are not tied to special interests outweighs any potential limiting of free speech.
Law hampers free speech
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Bill, was passed by Congress with much praise and anticipation. Proponents predicted the bill would end the use of soft money or unregulated political contributions that are used by both major parties. The results have been significantly less than stellar. During the course of the 2004 presidential election, it became abundantly clear that soft money and party committees had been merely replaced with 527 organizations like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Moveon.org. The ugly offspring of McCain-Feignold, 527 organizations, are left unregulated and can legally accept any amount of money from anyone. This massive loophole in BCRA has continued the use of soft money without hindrance. Rather than the Republican and Democratic parties directly receiving unregulated funds, campaign dollars in the area of $400 million now funnel to divisive organizations. If McCain-Feingold has had any effect on the use of soft money, it is that the law has given birth to venomous groups that are unaccountable for their actions, no matter how inaccurate or unfair they may be.
The most troubling aspect of BCRA, however, is its direct limits on free speech. The law calls for a moratorium on naming political candidates running for office 60 days before the election. The argument articulated by the reformers is that the ban is needed to prevent phony issue ad campaigns that slander a candidate. But certainly a major candidate would have the resources to respond adequately to a claim that was so patently false. BCRA's limitation on political discourse is the government essentially dictating what citizens can and cannot say in the final months of what is supposed to be a free, honest, engaging and fair campaign. McCain-Feingold puts a muzzle on Americans who are the most politically involved, all for the sake of clean elections. Practically, BCRA has become a contradiction in terms.
The absurdity and danger of McCain-Feingold's premise was revealed when the law's chief legislative sponsors sued the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) in 2005 for exempting bloggers from the tentacles of BCRA. Since BCRA limited political coordination with candidates, sponsors of the law believed bloggers should be regulated in how and when they can support political candidates. Bloggers were being punished by a 50-page piece of legislation that was billed as a restriction on the wealthiest of political contributors. Meanwhile, those same influential political donors were able to spend millions in their thinly veiled 527 organizations.
Enjoy what you're reading?
Signup for our newsletter
As candidates for the 2008 presidential election begin raising campaign funds, McCain-Feingold's restrictions will become relevant again. 527 organizations will re-emerge on the scene with even more slanderous mistruths than was seen in 2004. Candidates will have to start or end their campaign ads with the incredibly stupid catchphrase, "... and I approve this message," as if to suggest the candidate is now fully responsible for a negative ad.
And as the election nears and the American public finally begins to pay attention, there will be a 60-day blackout of candidates' name. Using the word "Hillary" or "Obama" could become a criminal offense. Big Brother will be watching everyone's political discussions in 2008 but his name will be McCain-Feingold.
Read More
How one professor and her classes are preserving Oxford’s Black history
By Sean Scott | March 20, 2024Jazma Sutton, an assistant professor of history, teaches The Black Midwest (HST 350Q) and Black Women in America (HST 450D) classes. In both courses, she has students working with the Smith Library of Regional History and Miami’s archives to document and preserve Black history in Oxford.
Miami faculty members recount Freedom Summer in new documentary
By Luke Macy | February 25, 2022After seven years of work, “Training for Freedom,” a documentary highlighting Oxford’s involvement in the Freedom Summer of 1964, premiered on PBS Western Reserve on Valentine’s Day.
“Documenting the COVID-19 Pandemic”: History in the making
By Alice Momany | August 29, 2021In March 2020, Miami University’s archives launched “Documenting the COVID-19 Pandemic,” a collection focused on life during the COVID-19 pandemic.