We wouldn’t let the criminals decide our nation’s policies on law enforcement, would we? So why are we letting incumbent politicians in the Congress decide the campaign finance rules? Needless to say, there’s more than a little conflict of interest there.
Some in the media are applauding the Senate’s passage of McCain-Feingold, the so-called overhaul of campaign finance. But there was one clear yardstick used by the Senate in considering the various issues of their “reform”: what’s best for the continued reelection of us poor little ole career politicians? That’s why the first thing they did was to give themselves added advantages against any challengers who spend lots of their own money.
In recent years, multi-millionaire challengers have sometimes been able to defeat incumbents. Next, they went after groups that run issue ads. This legislation would ban term limits groups and others from running ads that dare to mention an incumbent’s name within 60 days of an election. Of course, incumbents don’t like being criticized; so they want to outlaw our speech. Our Congressmen are split on raising the contribution limits with some incumbents thinking it helps them and others thinking it helps challengers more. Gee, who thinks the goal of campaign finance reform should be to make it easier for incumbents to get reelected? Raise your hand.
Senator McCain says of himself and others in Congress, “We are all corrupt.” Why then should we have campaign rules written of, by, and for the corrupted?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.