 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sunday, February 04, 2001
Political prostitution
U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay, as a professional politician, may have difficulty understanding just what the electorate objects to in the way campaigns are financed ("Campaign Finance 'Reform': An Assault on the First Amendment," Jan. 28 Forum). I'll make it simple for him:
It's like the difference between mutual financial support and affection with one's "significant other" and being a prostitute.
It isn't the First Amendment that is under attack; it's the commercialization of political office. We simply don't want to live in a nationwide red-light district. We want good government, but not the best that money can buy.
There. Does that help?
CAROLE McINTYRE
Laws for sale
I read with incredulity U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay's inane argument that campaign finance reform would be an impingement upon the First Amendment. His contention is that it would be detrimental to participation in the political system and destroy confidence in the political process. I fail to see how something that no longer exists can be destroyed.
What he actually fears is that campaign finance reform would break the stranglehold that his constituencies (energy interests, the fanatic far right, polluters, etc.) currently have on that political process. When he states his opinion that reform would stifle free speech, he is simply doing the old Texas two-step. What I hear him saying is that he has power and influence for sale, so keep those bucks coming, folks.
He tries to equate the purchasing, by large corporations, of advertising space in the media to the purchasing of political power by lobbyists and political action committees. If I don't like a specific product or the political views of a certain business entity, I simply ignore its products or views. But I cannot, without placing myself in jeopardy, ignore the laws purchased by special interest groups.
There is nothing in the McCain-Feingold campaign reform legislation that would restrict free political speech. The power purchasers still would have the same right as anyone else to mount a soapbox and speak, shout, sing or even use sign language to express their beliefs. They would still have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of their grievances.
In 1948 Harry Truman won the presidency in the then-biggest upset in American political history. He did so by going out and talking to the people and listening to them. He did not need huge amounts of money. He did it on less than $3 million.
HOWARD WEINBERG
Buying influence
I must say I am in awe reading the speech by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Texas (Jan. 28 Forum). It is a masterpiece of obfuscation and a truly thrilling example of hypocrisy rolled into one. Limiting campaign contributions by powerful people and interest groups will dampen freedom of speech? Really? Let's look at the other side.
What are the motives of the big-time contributors to political campaigns? Do they give out of love and admiration for the candidates and parties they underwrite? Do they give to further the democratic process? Do they donate out of the goodness of their hearts?
Come now, let's get real. They give in order to buy influence. When the lobbyists descend on the halls of Congress like locusts, do they not remind the politicians of the amounts of money contributed by special interests to their election campaigns? You bet they do!
I once wrote to Sen. Rick Santorum and asked what the big-money contributors get for their large gifts, and the answer was "access." Of course, that's a nice cover word for "influence." My question is, how do the rest of us, who can't afford large political contributions, get "access"? How is our freedom of speech protected by the present money-driven political system?
Tom DeLay's position is meant merely to throw dirt in the air to conceal a corrupt system in which politicians are the creatures of the big-money interests that back their campaigns, provide free vacations and fund elaborate inaugural parties and balls.
DEANE F. LAVENDER
Infringing on my speech
Rep. Tom DeLay's argument that the McCain-Feingold bill will restrict our First Amendment rights is illogical at the very least. Campaigns today are won and lost with money, the amounts growing more staggering every year.
In this way, those organizations and individuals who can contribute the most have more say in who gets nominated and elected and what the priorities are, once in office.
Contrary to what Mr. DeLay says, the current system restricts my First Amendment rights, valuing one person's free speech more than another's. Why should Bill Gates or some labor union speak more loudly with their millions than me or anyone else? Mr. DeLay's rhetoric of hiding behind (or twisting, in my opinion) the Constitution is transparent. Of course he and his fellow far right-wingers don't want campaign finance reform: it would end their control of the Republican Party, a stranglehold that is backed by soft-money dollars.
These dollars determine the party platform, typecasting the party as "Brand A" or "Brand B" so that all you need is a puppet like George W. Bush (or Al Gore, for that matter) to pitch the brand. Free-thinking candidates (like Sen. John McCain) and real debate are pushed out.
I used to be a Republican, but the games played by men like Rep. DeLay and Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott sicken me. We need campaign finance reform now. The political parties and their platforms need to be given back to the people.
MARC N. PALMISIANO
Waynesburg
Weirton, W.Va.
Beaver
South Side