Media Advisory: Greens Cautious About McCain-Feingold Reforms.
Tuesday, April 03, 2001
|
The Association of State Green Parties Media Advisory: Greens Cautious About McCain-Feingold Reforms. Tuesday, April 03, 2001 |
|
Contacts: |
||
Greens point to major flaws in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation:
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Greens across the U.S. warn Americans to be cautious of the promise of political reform as embodied in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which the Senate passed 59-41 on Monday, April 2. Most members of the Green Party say the bill falls woefully short of larger democratic goals: mitigating the leverage of wealthy elites and corporate interests over our electoral system and government, and increasing the power of citizens to speak on their own behalf and to elect officials that best represent their interests. The version passed "is a fraction of the original McCain-Feingold, [with] most of the better provisions traded out. This is not even close to the same bill of that title in the past," said Carol Miller of the New Mexico Green Party, who also noted that the old version of the bill provided for free air time and discounted postal rates, making candidates less dependent on raising money to get their message out. The bill passed Monday excludes such provisions, thanks to corporate media lobbies unwilling to surrender their high fees for political ads. For the Green Party, the progress of the McCain-Feingold bill has been a bellwether measuring the commitment of Republicans and -- especially -- Democrats to electoral reform. A few Democrats tried to strengthen it; the mainstream of the party welcomed the many compromises that have watered it down; Democratic Senator John Breaux of Louisiana agreed with Rep. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky that addiction to big campaign checks should override the demand for clean elections. On Wednesday, March 28, the Senate voted overwhelmingly in favor of an amendment to the bill doubling the amount of individual "hard money" campaign contributions from $1,000 to $2,000, a move that only benefits wealthy donors. Few middle-income and fewer low-income Americans ever contribute more than $100 to a preferred candidate. The vote was 84 to 16, with all Republicans and most Democrats voting yea. The bill's chief benefit is that it will stem theflow of huge corporate "soft money" checks to political parties, a figure which reached $750 million in the 2000 election. But there's little pretense McCainFeingold will stop corporate lobbies from finding ways to circumvent the bill's reforms. Democrats confirmed their faith in corporate-financed election campaigns in their recent selection of big-money fundraiser and lobbyists' darling Terry McAuliffe to chair the Democratic National Committee. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee raised $7.5 million in the first three months of 2001, compared to $3 million in the first quarter of 1997 and $6.9 million in the first quarter of 1999. On March 28, House Republicans held a dinner that raised about $7 million in one night, nearly as much as the Democrats raised in three months. Greens do not accept corporate contributions.The Green Party and its candidates do not accept corporate contributions. "The American public has finally woken up to seeing clearly that their government has been sold for profit," said Annie Goeke, one of three co-chairs of the Association of State Green Parties. "The two party system is now so
entrenched with past campaign favors and bribes that they are Compromised Reform.Many Greens take seriously the objections raised by groups like the Alliance for Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the AFL-CIO that provisions in the bill may limit the rights of ordinary citizens, their organizations, and unions to campaign for issues and candidates. The Codification of the Beck Decision, limiting union involvement in state and local elections, restricts their ability to lobby for living wages, universal health care, community right-to-know statutes, etc. The Alliance for Justice withdrew its endorsement because of prohibitions against pre-election radio and TV ads by nonprofits that mention candidates by name. McCain-Feingold also restricts communication between issue organizations and campaigns, tampering with the legitimate right to lobby. Section 313 of the bill, "Use of Contributed Amounts for Certain Purposes," allowing contributions "for ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with the duties of the individual as a holder of federal office" and "for transfers to a national, State, or local committee of a political party," is a protection amendment for incumbents, allowing them to route money raised in a campaign towards political party committees. Regrettably, Senate supporters of McCain-Feingold rejected an amendment from Sen. Paul Wellstone, which received little news coverage or analysis, "to allow a state to enact voluntary public financing legislation regarding the election of federal candidates in such state." The amendment, which would have allowed publicly financed clean money campaigns in state races for federal candidates (excluding presidential and vice presidential candidates) lost 64-36, with 14 Democrats, including Sen. Feingold, joining the nays. Passage of the bill will postpone further discussion of clean-money public financing of campaigns. The correct title of the legislation is "A Bill to Amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to Provide Bipartisan Campaign Reform; Short Title Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001." The title supports the contention of Greens that the bill is NOT nonpartisan, that it strengthens exclusive two-party rule as the two major parties grow closer together on major issues, and that it continues to freeze out third parties, narrow election choices, and restrict the public debate. Throughout the 2000 election, Greens accused Democrats, under the leadership of President Clinton and Vice President Gore, of discarding traditional party positions, such as the promises of the New Deal and Great Society and the pledge of national health coverage, and turning into the moderate wing of the Republican Party. Since November 7, continuing "bipartisan consensus" has proven the Greens generally correct. The Clinton-Gore Administration, represented by the U.S. delegation Hague Convention on Climate Change last November and acting in deference to fossil fuel lobbies, sabotaged negotiations and blocked enactment of the Kyoto Protocols to reduce greenhouse gases -- handing President Bush a license to cancel the U.S. commitment to fight global warming. Senate Democrats joined Republicans in confirming Interior Secretary Gale Norton, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, FCC head Michael Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and other Republican ideologues -- only Attorney General John Ashcroft met serious resistance. No Democratic Senators, progressive or otherwise, stood up in support of the Congressional Black Caucus's challenge of the Electoral College results, in an election marked by irregularities, voter obstruction, and patent miscounts. The Fanny Lou Hamer standard:"Real campaign finance reform would meet the Fannie Lou Hamer standard, which is named after the legendary African American voting rights champion who worked on a Mississippi cotton plantation for most of her life. The Fannie Lou Hamer standard asks whether a proposed reform would make the system more fair for someone like Hamer, a poor woman of color." --Fannie Lou Hamer Wouldn't Like This, Spencer Overton, law professor at UC Davis and member of the board of directors of the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, The Los Angeles Times, Thursday, March 29, 2001. The Green Party's vision of campaign financing and other electoral reform follows the Fanny Lou Hamer standard, recognizing democratic elections as a civil rights issue. Under the current at-larg big-money electoral system, working people, the poor, people of color, and young people find themselves and their concerns so ignored that many don't bother to vote. Real reform, say Greens, would include the measures to limit the compromising influence of big campaign checks, to give voters the right to be informed about all candidates on the ballot, and to ensure that all Americans win representation:
MORE INFORMATION: The Fannie Lou Hamer Project: http://www.flhp.org search: elws, cpr,
prty |
||