The Reality Of Campaign Finance "Reform"
Christopher G. Adamo
Most people out here in the Midwest understand the futile and phony arguments of those who advocate "gun control," by which they really mean gun confiscation.
According to the gun grabbers, a society in which law-abiding citizens are "free" of guns will be inherently safer and more peaceful. Of course the gun grabbers are never discouraged by the reality of that popular statement "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." With a zealousness born of blind faith, they press on, seemingly oblivious to the wealth of statistical evidence which incontrovertibly refutes their case.
Similarly, the resurgent cries for campaign finance "reform," though not as immediately obvious in their deceptiveness, rely on the very same patterns of flawed "logic," and possess the same dangers to life and liberty, as do the attacks on the Second Amendment. To more fully understand the perils involved with campaign finance "reform," consider the following two questions: First, just whose behavior is so universally corrupt as to warrant the need for restraint by new and oppressive laws, "reforming" campaign finance? Second, just who are the individuals who will write these laws ostensibly intended to fix the corruption?
Clearly restrictions placed on the abilities of honest citizens to participate in the political process are no more likely to curtail the activities of corrupt politicians than will restrictions on lawful gun ownership impede the actions of violent criminals. What would be hampered (or, more accurately, hamstrung), by the implementation of such laws is the ability of private citizens' groups, such as the NRA, to counteract disinformation campaigns conducted against them on the nightly news, especially just prior to an election.
Consider one particularly heinous aspect of the version of campaign finance "reform" legislation recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. If this bill is ever enacted it will literally outlaw any "negative" advertising by citizens' groups within sixty days of an election. Far from doing anything to "clean up" politics, such a law guarantees that the big lies would commence exactly fifty-nine days prior to an election and that they would continue up until the precise moment that the voters could no longer respond to fact and hold candidates accountable.
Taking the gun control analogy one step further, an examination of the significance of another equally frightening aspect of campaign finance "reform" reveals why, although it so blatantly abominates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment's protection of free speech, the major media has been salivating at the prospect of its eventual passage.
Suppose Sarah Brady, the President of "Handgun Control Incorporated" (HCI) was being interviewed by a major nightly news program. And suppose she was allowed to go on, uninterrupted for five or ten minutes, expounding on the virtues of "Candidate A" who agreed with her belief that guns should be removed from the hands of the private citizens. This would not be considered a campaign ad, but simply an interview by the news network.
Although somewhat costly, private citizens are presently able to counteract the media/HCI misinformation campaign by pooling their resources through the support of an organization like the NRA, which is then able to conduct its own publicity efforts. Not so under the proposed "reform" legislation. For while the network anchors could claim to be merely "reporting the news (despite its obvious benefit to "Candidate A"), the NRA advertising campaign, by being detrimental to "Candidate A" would essentially be considered a "soft money contribution" to "Candidate B," and therefore in violation of the law.
Thus, it would be left up to the "integrity" of the nightly news to establish fairness and balance when reporting on the viewpoints and ideologies of every candidate running for office. This ought to scare anyone who believes in the democratic process.
It is altogether arrogant and elitist for an organization like the United States Congress, which has proven its absolute unwillingness to hold its own members accountable for violations of present campaign finance law, to suggest that it can "fix" things by suppressing the liberties of the private citizenry. It is hypocrisy to suggest that Washington can be "cleaned up" by restricting the actions of individuals who give support to ideologically kindred candidates, instead of holding accountable those politicians who sell influence to the highest bidder.
And just who is enthusiastically supporting this arrogance, elitism, and hypocrisy? Some notable members of the House and Senate, including its figurehead, Senator John McCain of Arizona (who railed against Moral Conservatism and the Second Amendment during the 2000 Presidential Campaign), virtually every member of the Congress who voted to overlook the corrupt actions of Bill Clinton during his impeachment, and none other than that liberal Democrat from the Wyoming GOP... Alan Simpson.
Along with these people, every individual who, from this point forward, has the ability to stop this travesty against the First Amendment but chooses not to do so, should be regarded as a collaborator in the effort to violate and, to a major degree, nullify the United States Constitution.
|
