Andrew Sullivan
February 21, 2002 1:40 PM Subscribe
Andrew Sullivan on why Bush should sign Campaign Finance Reform.
I would be very disappointed if Bush signed this bill. It clearly contains sections which violate the 1st Amendment. I know that we cannot depend on Congress to exercise restraint with regard to unconstitutional laws, but the President should remember his oath to protect the Constitution and not pass off his responsibility onto the courts.
posted by CRS at 2:16 PM on February 21, 2002
posted by CRS at 2:16 PM on February 21, 2002
CRS: What about the oath our congresscritters took?
I'm disappointed in the entire lot of them. Again.
posted by hadashi at 2:19 PM on February 21, 2002
I'm disappointed in the entire lot of them. Again.
posted by hadashi at 2:19 PM on February 21, 2002
... at least why he should sign Shays-Meehan if it reaches his desk, Ty. That is, AS is supporting this particular bill because he perceives it would result in a tactical advantage.
I think there are good provisions in this bill, though I like McCain-Feingold better (and not just because Feingold's brother is my family's lawyer, heh). Nevertheless I believe both bills have essentially unconstitutional provisions that would not be upheld by the USSC.
posted by dhartung at 2:31 PM on February 21, 2002
I think there are good provisions in this bill, though I like McCain-Feingold better (and not just because Feingold's brother is my family's lawyer, heh). Nevertheless I believe both bills have essentially unconstitutional provisions that would not be upheld by the USSC.
posted by dhartung at 2:31 PM on February 21, 2002
I don't think this bill will solve the problem. Some loopholes closed over here and a new set open up over there. Much of it will get tossed out as being unconstitutional.
You want to reform campaign finances? Reduce the astronomical costs so more people can pay to play, and won't be so dependent on hard or soft money. What's the biggest cost? TV ads. So get rid of 'em. They banned cigarette ads from TV long ago, and politicians can be considered a comparable threat to one's health.
posted by groundhog at 2:34 PM on February 21, 2002
You want to reform campaign finances? Reduce the astronomical costs so more people can pay to play, and won't be so dependent on hard or soft money. What's the biggest cost? TV ads. So get rid of 'em. They banned cigarette ads from TV long ago, and politicians can be considered a comparable threat to one's health.
posted by groundhog at 2:34 PM on February 21, 2002
The cigarette TV ad ban happened right around the time I was born. Does anyone know if it was ever challenged in court, or did Big Tobacco go along with it in the (wrongheaded) hopes that it would get Big Activism to lay off them? My point being that I'm not sure whether anyone ever bothered to ask if the cigarette ad ban was constitutional. There are lots of laws on the books that are there simply because they've never been challenged.
posted by aaron at 2:49 PM on February 21, 2002
posted by aaron at 2:49 PM on February 21, 2002
insomnyuk is right, and not just about the 60 day ban. Soft money goes to parties as often as not, who can take a bit more chances with it (direct it towards funding new candidates). If that is constrained, money will tend to move towards sure things ... incumbants. And the 60 day ban is huge ... cutting two full months from the time between a new candidate winning a primary, and being able to get known to the public as fully as an incumbant is a big change (most upsets happen in the last couple of weeks of a campaign)- not to mention the fact that during those two months the incumbant will be able to use his/her office to be in the press almost as often as they want.
Don't exactly know what people are aiming at if they say they want campaign finance "reform" ... but unless they want to further cement the hold of incumbants ... this is the wrong way to approach things ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:23 PM on February 21, 2002
Don't exactly know what people are aiming at if they say they want campaign finance "reform" ... but unless they want to further cement the hold of incumbants ... this is the wrong way to approach things ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:23 PM on February 21, 2002
at least why he should sign Shays-Meehan if it reaches his desk, Ty.
Good point, thanks for the clarification, dhartung.
Reduce the astronomical costs so more people can pay to play, and won't be so dependent on hard or soft money. What's the biggest cost? TV ads. So get rid of 'em.
Television is the best way to reach people, though the medium does tend toward oversimplified soundbites. I'm for free airtime for candidates, the airwaves are public resources and broadcasters use them, theoretically, at the public's pleasure. The problem then becomes: how to create a threshhold for "serious" candidates to be allotted the airtime.
Soft money goes to parties as often as not, who can take a bit more chances with it (direct it towards funding new candidates). If that is constrained, money will tend to move towards sure things ... incumbants.
Brace yourself, Midas: I completely agree.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2002
Good point, thanks for the clarification, dhartung.
Reduce the astronomical costs so more people can pay to play, and won't be so dependent on hard or soft money. What's the biggest cost? TV ads. So get rid of 'em.
Television is the best way to reach people, though the medium does tend toward oversimplified soundbites. I'm for free airtime for candidates, the airwaves are public resources and broadcasters use them, theoretically, at the public's pleasure. The problem then becomes: how to create a threshhold for "serious" candidates to be allotted the airtime.
Soft money goes to parties as often as not, who can take a bit more chances with it (direct it towards funding new candidates). If that is constrained, money will tend to move towards sure things ... incumbants.
Brace yourself, Midas: I completely agree.
posted by Ty Webb at 4:23 PM on February 21, 2002
"Brace yourself, Midas: I completely agree."
Actually, I suspect you probably do. You're a pretty sharp guy (I don't bloody care if we have completely different perspectives on most things - I'm here at least in part to delibrately be in a place where a lot of people disagree with me, and good vigorous discussions are a delight). A lot of this particular discussion is really a matter of fact, not opinion. Everyone in DC - and most intelligent observers (left or right makes no difference) know damn well what this bill will and won't do.
You know, the odd thing about politics is that the issues that generate the most massive smoke and fire in public are often quite insignificant to the core functions of governance. We fixature on Bush or Gore ... but really, every four years somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people are replaced on top of a federal bureaucracy that numbers over a million employees (the US Federal Government is actually the single largest employer in the world). Putting a new brass bell in the pilot house of a huge ocean liner really is going to do very little - regardless of whether it's got a donkey or an elephant on it.
The thing that concerns me most about either "campaign finance reform" or term limits is that both will tend to do the same thing in practice: shift Washington power into the hands of incumbants, or (more likely) lobbyists.
Underneath a small number of issues that make the news, the vast bulk of legislation is endless reams of exceedingly complex stuff, and it really does take specialists. Large amounts of our legislation is written by lobbyists (in it's initial drafts), and then simply refined and tweaked by actual congressional or executive staffers. This isn't a bad thing ... as the staffs are actually quite small, and no sinlge congressperson is ever going to be able to grasp the details of the many issues that s/he votes on. At best, those who have been there for awhile learn the process, get committee seats, and maybe master one or two topics. Most executives and congresses use lobbyists to do the heavy lifting. (They all know this, and both parties do it ... whether it's Bush having energy people draft energy policy, or Clinton inviting unions to draft labor laws ... the point is the same).
The thing is, even in controversial bills, maybe 5% of the actual bill will be controversial, and 95% will be the nitty-gritty details of writing legislation. Completely aside from the topics they use to get elected, there is the actual work of governing, and intellect is really necessary.
Sam Nunn (an example that comes to mind) was a relatively moderate Democrat, did the public stuff needed to be elected, but in Washington itself - behind the scenes, he was close to brilliant in his understanding of military and intelligence issues. There are a few that really nail taxes. Others in other fields. Point is, these are the people that understand what the lobbyists writing the bills would attempt to squeeze through the cracks ... and would be able to if there weren't some people that understood the nuances.
Well, babbling too much here. The essence is that dramtic superficial solutions to perceived problems (which is what I believe campagin finance reform and term limits both are) will nearly always have completely unexpected, and unintended side effects that will often wind up themselves being much worse than the initial problems people were trying to solve.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:37 PM on February 21, 2002
Actually, I suspect you probably do. You're a pretty sharp guy (I don't bloody care if we have completely different perspectives on most things - I'm here at least in part to delibrately be in a place where a lot of people disagree with me, and good vigorous discussions are a delight). A lot of this particular discussion is really a matter of fact, not opinion. Everyone in DC - and most intelligent observers (left or right makes no difference) know damn well what this bill will and won't do.
You know, the odd thing about politics is that the issues that generate the most massive smoke and fire in public are often quite insignificant to the core functions of governance. We fixature on Bush or Gore ... but really, every four years somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 people are replaced on top of a federal bureaucracy that numbers over a million employees (the US Federal Government is actually the single largest employer in the world). Putting a new brass bell in the pilot house of a huge ocean liner really is going to do very little - regardless of whether it's got a donkey or an elephant on it.
The thing that concerns me most about either "campaign finance reform" or term limits is that both will tend to do the same thing in practice: shift Washington power into the hands of incumbants, or (more likely) lobbyists.
Underneath a small number of issues that make the news, the vast bulk of legislation is endless reams of exceedingly complex stuff, and it really does take specialists. Large amounts of our legislation is written by lobbyists (in it's initial drafts), and then simply refined and tweaked by actual congressional or executive staffers. This isn't a bad thing ... as the staffs are actually quite small, and no sinlge congressperson is ever going to be able to grasp the details of the many issues that s/he votes on. At best, those who have been there for awhile learn the process, get committee seats, and maybe master one or two topics. Most executives and congresses use lobbyists to do the heavy lifting. (They all know this, and both parties do it ... whether it's Bush having energy people draft energy policy, or Clinton inviting unions to draft labor laws ... the point is the same).
The thing is, even in controversial bills, maybe 5% of the actual bill will be controversial, and 95% will be the nitty-gritty details of writing legislation. Completely aside from the topics they use to get elected, there is the actual work of governing, and intellect is really necessary.
Sam Nunn (an example that comes to mind) was a relatively moderate Democrat, did the public stuff needed to be elected, but in Washington itself - behind the scenes, he was close to brilliant in his understanding of military and intelligence issues. There are a few that really nail taxes. Others in other fields. Point is, these are the people that understand what the lobbyists writing the bills would attempt to squeeze through the cracks ... and would be able to if there weren't some people that understood the nuances.
Well, babbling too much here. The essence is that dramtic superficial solutions to perceived problems (which is what I believe campagin finance reform and term limits both are) will nearly always have completely unexpected, and unintended side effects that will often wind up themselves being much worse than the initial problems people were trying to solve.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:37 PM on February 21, 2002
Television is the best way to reach people, though the medium does tend toward oversimplified soundbites. I'm for free airtime for candidates
Actually, they already get free airtime. Ever see a televised speech on the news?
I'm not adverse to giving candidates blocks of airtime. I realize the media or the pols would never go along with my original suggestion of a complete ban - unless we can get a study linking political emissions to cancer - foolish of me to imagine the American Public having to pick up a newspaper or magazine and actually read about a candidate and his record.
posted by groundhog at 5:54 AM on February 22, 2002
Actually, they already get free airtime. Ever see a televised speech on the news?
I'm not adverse to giving candidates blocks of airtime. I realize the media or the pols would never go along with my original suggestion of a complete ban - unless we can get a study linking political emissions to cancer - foolish of me to imagine the American Public having to pick up a newspaper or magazine and actually read about a candidate and his record.
posted by groundhog at 5:54 AM on February 22, 2002
Actually, they already get free airtime. Ever see a televised speech on the news?
No. I see televised soundbites on the news (except for C-SPAN), chosen by the news organization, followed by "analysis" in which the news organization tells you what the politician meant ... in the view of the news organization. This is one of the biggest problems with this so-called reform: It allows the media to make all the decisions about what issues are important, which candidates are most worth covering, and whether to cover said issues and candidates in a positive or negative light. For those who believe the news media is biased - no matter which direction - you ought to be very very worried about that.
posted by aaron at 11:50 AM on February 23, 2002
No. I see televised soundbites on the news (except for C-SPAN), chosen by the news organization, followed by "analysis" in which the news organization tells you what the politician meant ... in the view of the news organization. This is one of the biggest problems with this so-called reform: It allows the media to make all the decisions about what issues are important, which candidates are most worth covering, and whether to cover said issues and candidates in a positive or negative light. For those who believe the news media is biased - no matter which direction - you ought to be very very worried about that.
posted by aaron at 11:50 AM on February 23, 2002
« Older CNN reports Daniel Pearl is dead | File under "How Low Can You Get?". Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I would be rather surprised if Bush vetoed it, it looks bad to oppose anything labeled 'reform.' Hopefully the Supreme Court will strike down the unconstitutional provisions.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:53 PM on February 21, 2002