Re campaign finance:
In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v Valeo:
"(a) The contribution provisions, along with those covering disclosure, are appropriate legislative weapons against the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions, and the ceilings imposed accordingly serve the basic governmental interest in safeguarding the integrity of the electoral process without directly impinging upon the rights of individual citizens and candidates to engage in political debate and discussion."
and
"Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence "is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative Government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent."
In other words, there are competing interests with regard to First amendment rights and freedom of association when it comes to political contributions, but the court clearly ruled that the mere "appearance" of corruption constitutes a threat to democracy and is corrosive to the constitution.
Polls released within the last couple of days have indicated that a good deal more than a majority of people feel that the Bush administration is not telling the whole truth about Enron, just about all of the Senators involved in the hearings have taken campaign contributions from Enron, and the Bix Six accounting firms have poured something like $50 million into campaign contributions
in the past ten years. We all know by now what they have gotten for their money. A little brouhaha on this thread occurred last week about whether the SEC under Clinton was "corrupt" because they allowed Enron a pass on a key provision of a 1940 law passed to protect investors. Even though Enron gave at least 75% of their contributions to Republicans, fingers point in all directions. Some even think the Enron thingy belongs solely in Clinton's lap.
But the problem is clearly systemic. And the depth of the problem doesn't depend on whether there was or will ever be found actual quid pro quo between Enron and Clinton, Arthur Leavitt, Harvey Pitt, Bush, Cheney, Lieberman, Toricelli, Karl Rove, or a host of others. The Supreme Court ruled that the appearance of corruption is enough to justify reform. Imagine how people will feel if we spend the next two years investigating Enron and nothing really changes. The Senate has already passed campaign finance reform. Now it's the House's turn. |
