Who believes that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill worked, that is, did it accomplish what it was intended to accomplish? Of course not, and right from the start. Now, how effective do you think the ethics legislation just passed is? More importantly, how can Nancy Pelosi claim this as historic legislation? Because she’s Nancy Pelosi of course. Take pay for access
for example.
In a day and at a time when political ethics issues cast a pall on Washington D.C. caused by ‘special interests’ that influence politicians with money (all out of the kindness of their shareholders’ heart), with NO expectation of government decisions favorable to their company, you might be surprised to hear about this. . .
The host committees of 2008’s biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get.
A million or five will get you a good meal and some face-time with the man, or woman. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It does raise money necessary to conduct a campaign. It just seems like campaign finance reform is the one thing that politicians really don’t want but say they do.
The premise that special interests, aka money, are corrupting the politicians and that laws need to be made to limit the money, totally misses the point. If anyone is corrupt, it is the politician that does a quid pro quo or who otherwise breaks the law in money laundering and/or takes bribes like William Jefferson (D-La) did. It’s not the donor, it’s what the recipient does. Don’t re-elect a crook.
IMHO McCain-Feingold should be repealed. Despite what the SCOTUS says, limiting political speech is unconstitutional. Besides, it doesn’t work anyway.
