The source of campaign funds
have been the subject of fascination and
regulation since the nation’s founding. Everyone
agrees that all aspects of our free elections
should be beneficial to the voting public’s need
and right to know. Campaigns are largely an
educational function in which candidates attempt
to inform the public of the positions, abilities
and character. For our system of government to
be effective and free, it is essential that our
campaign systems eliminate, as much as possible,
any special advantages that accrue to the
benefit of incumbents, the wealthy, the famous,
and the well-connected. Frequently, the campaign
and election laws are changed to provide a
process that is fair to all candidates. Anything
that favors incumbent over challengers is an
anathema to a free society.
Despite the claims to the
contrary, many so-called reforms are little more
than disguised efforts to protect incumbents by
making challenges more difficult. Many times,
the changes are subtle, and the general public
is not aware of them. Some times, the general
public is wrongly persuaded as to the benefit of
new restrictions and regulations.
In 1971, Congress passed the
Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that
required reporting of campaign contributions in
federal elections. The ACT was amended in 1974
to place a cap on the total amount that could be
contributed. Since that time, the matter of
election reform has been an evergreen issue in
the political arena. Rather than positively
reform national elections, as the proponents
promised, the 1971 and 1974 legislations proved
to be a “slippery slope” that has propagated a
myriad of so-called reforms at all level of
government. Central to these “reforms” has been
efforts to limit or abandon private
contributions as the appropriate means of
funding individual campaigns. The bans against
contributions from corporations, financial
institutions, liquor merchants, and others have
combined to create a complex array of
inconsistencies and injustices in the election
system. The “reform” laws have produced a number
of untoward consequences, some intentional and
some unanticipated.
Limitations on contributions
created an instant advantage for self-financed
campaigns by very wealthy individuals. The
limitation, were supposed to retrain the cost of
campaign, only resulted in candidates rejecting
government funding for campaigns in favored of
aggressive private fundraising.
Many of the “reforms” were
thinly disguised means of providing greater
advantages for incumbents, candidate with great
wealth and one party over another. Many reforms
were designed to give government bureaucrats
undeserved power over the elections. Many
reforms were simply intended to discourage voter
awareness. Many reforms were designed to curtail
contributions to non-incumbents.
In recent years, so-called
"reformers" forced the passage of the Campaign
Reform Act. So-in cahoots with then governor George Ryan.
They rammed the
legislation through at the last hours of the
legislative session. Legislators were
provided only a couple hours from the
time the bill was presented to the time of the
vote. There were no hearings on the bill.
The voices of opposition were silenced.
These so-called election reforms were passed by
sleazy political forces in the most shameful
manner.
When is a canary a chicken? In
Illinois, the leading proponent of stricter
election regulation and public financing of all
campaigns is Illinois Campaign for Political
Reform, headed
by Cindi Canary. While they profess to
support good government, the Illinois Campaign
for Political Reform was the sheep skin covering
the wolf. In the name of reform they
engaged in a process that would have made the
old guard at Tammany Hall very proud. Since that time, PPC has made several
attempts to engage Ms. Canary in a public debate on
the issues. In defiance of the principle
of an informed public, her group has
consistently prefered backroom political
approaches.
Please add my name to the _______.