(Yes, we wouldn't want to reform government until we've thoroughly broken its back, now would we? - promoted by SFBrianCL)
(Cross-posted at dKos)
The Orange County Register is hardly known for its liberal bias. And true to form, its editorial page came out yesterday against Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. It's hardly a surprise, but what's noteworthy is that they really can't name much that's wrong with it. The editorial even admits, in a snide way,
The idea is to level the playing field, allowing candidates without access to big money to compete, and centering campaigns on ideas rather than money. Nice thoughts. |
| So then, what's their problem with it?
A more fundamental objection is that limits on contributions and spending by political campaigns are limitations on freedom of political speech – the kind of speech the First Amendment was most specifically designed to protect. Elections should be about the people telling the government what to do, but if government regulates elections tightly the people's options become limited.
Ah, the Freedom of Speech concern. The Register is clearly worried that you and I, the average voters, are being denied our right to free speech. I'm sure the limits on corporate contributions have nothing to do with their concerns.
And the kicker:
Campaign spending limits put the cart before the horse. Big money is interested in politics (aside from the ego factor) because government decisions can make or break businesses and entire industries. This can't be fixed until government power is limited. If it isn't, interests affected by government decisions will find ways, including money, to be persuasive to those making the decisions.
So, get rid of those pollution controls, forget about federal deposit insurance, stop regulating the stock market. When left alone, businesses do the right thing. And then we won't need any campaign reform, because business won't need to influence the government anymore.
It's most interesting that the Register seems worried about the doom this "well-intentioned" reform will bring to California - yet doesn't see fit to mention the turmoil in Maine and Arizona, who have had similar reforms in place since 2000. That's because it's not there. Clean money reforms are working well in those states. Voters there now have more choice in candidates and consequently are increasing their turnout at the polls. Maine was even able to pass a form of universal health care.
We are more than two months away from the election, and the Register feels the need to start attacking now. That tells me they and their corporate backers are scared. Scared that the electorate just might want to get back some say in the political process. And even more worried that if the proposition passes in California, there will be momentum spreading nationwide.
But when cornered, the special interests are already bringing out the big guns. The California Chamber of Commerce, representing big oil, insurance firms, HMOs, developers, and other businesses, has formed a committee to oppose the initiative. We have to be ready to fight back. Please help make clean money campaigns in California a reality, and in doing so, help bring us another step closer to clean money all across America. You can give money; you can give time. And if you're in Southern California, you can give the Register a piece of your mind. Prop 89 makes politicians accountable to voters, not big donors. |
