December 17, 2004
A campaign system only an incumbent could love (part two of seven)
By Bill Kraus
Over the course of the last 30 years a campaign system has evolved in this country that is driven by money, is beholden to special interests, and has alienated independents and political moderates of all persuasions. While the 2004 election (estimated cost $1.2 billion) was no kiss for Christmas, I still think the Wisconsin gubernatorial election of 2002 illustrated the depths to which we have descended even more dramatically.
In that election, Jim Doyle was convincingly elected by 19 percent of the eligible voters at a cost of $8.50 per vote.
I have identified seven culprits and events that got us to this pretty pass, and I will enumerate them over the course of the next seven weeks. Stay tuned.
Culprit Number Two: the United States Supreme Court
In the now infamous 1976 case Buckley v. Vallejo, the U.S. Supreme Court added a dictum to the basic decision of the case which said in effect, maybe in fact, that money is not just money. Money is also speech. This meant that money, political money anyway, would from that day forward get all the protections of the well protected 1st Amendment to the constitution.
All attempts at political reform from that day forward have had to somehow disempower money. The only acceptable way to do that has been to insert public money into the campaign funding mix. A candidate who accepts public money, under this ruling, can be subjected to campaign spending limits. It will not surprise you to learn that no millionaire has done this. Nor has anyone who has access to large amounts of money from other places, no matter how tainted.
The route to meaningful spending controls and campaign finance reform has been full of constitutional potholes ever since 1976. All attempts to fill the potholes in since then, despite the very favorable ruling on the McCain-Feingold reforms, are constrained by that 1976 decision. Until and unless the court lets Congress and state Legislatures set the rules for political campaigns and activity, the court will still be culprit number two.
post a letter about this blog »
current
--------
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004