Campaign reforms needed

by Darryl Wilkinson — Once again we find Congresswoman Pat Danner voicing an opinion we’d like to scream aloud into our nation’s capitol. Danner advocates a full debate on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on the issue of campaign finance reform. Right now the legislative tool in use is a discharge petition which enables 218 members of the House to require the committee of jurisdiction to discharge legislation for consideration. What this means is that, if successful, congressmen would consider every proposal suggested, not just those selected, in the public arena before a vote. That’s what should happen.

On another front, we hope the U.S. Supreme Court reinstates campaign contribution limits in Missouri.

In the 1994 election 74% of Missouri voters supported a referendum imposing campaign limits. The state legislature passed similar campaign finance reforms limiting contributions to $1,000 for statewide office, $500 to state senate candidates and $250 to candidates for state representative. The limits went into effect in January, 1995, and governed all elections until July, 1998, when the court of appeals stayed enforcement of the law until final ruling which is expected this November. The court of appeals ruled that campaign limits curtails freedom of speech.

Baloney.

This issue is about how money speaks, not the right of the individual candidate to speak. Limiting campaign contributions does not deny the right to a candidacy; money only limits how loudly a candidate’s view might be heard. The current abuse is not by those with too little money to use but those with too much. Campaign limits, in light of modern day election spending excess, is reasonable. Government should not be required to wait until some unforseen situation exists; public confidence in our system of representative government is already seriously damaged. Campaign finance reform is preventive medicine — long overdue. Limiting campaign funds won’t fix things but it could help things from getting worse.

Political parties do not want reform. The awful truth is that an unrealized degree of public policy is determined not by elected representatives of the people but by functionaries of political parties who have no constituency and are answerable to no one, empowered by campaign war chests. Take the presidential primary in Missouri, for example. Political watchdogs write that the Democratic National Committee may have decided for us on whether we are to have a presidential primary in Missouri next year. Their ruling is that our state cannot hold a presidential primary if Missouri refuses to record voters by their party. That’s worth asking, “Why?”

One party’s dominance in either state or federal legislative bodies produces the inevitable impotence of the smaller-represented party. Money is a measure of that reality. Too often it seems irrelevant that each congressman and legislator represents the same number of constituents, regardless of party. It seems painfully obvious that our system is becoming corrupt because of partisan insistence on unlimited spending. And corrupt is exactly the right word; taxpayers — and our elected representatives — know our government is driven more by politics than the concepts of our founding fathers.

If the people we elect are truly worried about voter indifference, if they really want to begin easing the public’s perception of voter impotence in public affairs, then a good place to start is with campaign spending reform on the state and national levels. Ignoring campaign reform or pious calls for change without any real legislative follow-through simply signals, once again, that those we elect are more interested in “them” than all of us.