Subject: "Personal Corruption" or Oligarchy (Guru)..
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 053948 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
Hi everybody:
.......I hope all of the Americans on this list will take the time to read
the news report below which tells of the debate on the Senate floor over
the "campaign finance reform" legislation....
What a silly argument is being raised by Senator McConnell as he attempts
to narrowly define the debate as if "personal corruption" were the issue.
He (and, I believe) virtually every Senator knows full well that "personal
corruption" -- bribery -- is NOT what the McCain-Feingold bill is designed
to correct..... That bill is aimed at a "corruption of the democratic
process": under the present campaign laws, we are seeing the creation of
an OLIGARCHY (only the few big $$$$$$$$ contributors have genuine
access/influence upon our government) where once we had a "representative
democracy." Thomas Jefferson , et al, gave us a system where every man's
vote counted the same..... Now we have system where the big $$$$$$$
contributors narrow out the options (in the Presidential nomination
process, for example) before the "will" of the rest of the people can
be exercised.
In today's campaign contribution system, that Senator McConnell is
defending, the contributions of the big $$$$$$$$ spenders ARE the
votes.... They "buy" the policy and the laws..... Corruption of the
SYSTEM is the right concept.....
Senator McConnell's 'misrepresentation' of the actual position taken by
McCain-Feingold is not one of carelessness, it is a deliberate attempt to
frame the debate on 'personalities' rather than the grave issues of
the preservation of genuine "democratic government" -- the SYSTEM --
involved here......
Also, folks the disinterest of the "general public" in this issue is
becoming even more frightening to me than the corruption of the system
that is occurring. It suggests to me that people have "given up hope"
of ever being able to do anything about their loss of influence in their
government. No wonder there is much cynicism..... If you can, please
contact your senator and register your opinion on this.....
Cheerio.....
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)......
rbeavers@llion.org.......
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
EMF-L web-site can be found at:
EMF-L archives can be found at:
..................PEOPLE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROFITS..................
_________________________________________________________________
08:39 PM ET 10/14/99
Campaign Finance Debate Opens Hotly
By DAVID ESPO=
Associated Press Writer=
WASHINGTON (AP) _ Opponents of campaign finance legislation
indignantly challenged the bill's leading supporter to back up
broadly worded allegations of corruption Thursday as the Senate
opened debate on the measure to reduce the role of money in
politics.
``I have been accused of being corrupt,'' said Sen. Robert
Bennett, R-Utah, referring to material on Sen. John McCain's
presidential campaign Web site.
``I did not accuse him of being corrupt. So no apology or
withdrawal is warranted,'' McCain, R-Ariz., responded from a few
feet away on the Senate floor.
The exchange punctuated the opening day of debate on the
legislation, which faces an uphill struggle for approval. Opponents
led by Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have promised to filibuster.
The debate has become something of an annual Senate ritual in
recent years, with sponsors struggling unsuccessfully to overcome
blocking tactics by Republicans who claim the measure violates the
free speech guarantees of the Constitution. In an effort to avoid a
similar fate this year, McCain and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.,
decided to bring a stripped-down measure to the floor.
As drafted, the bill would ban the use of ``soft money'' in
federal campaigns. Soft money, prized by the political parties,
refers to unlimited donations that are unregulated by the federal
government.
The measure also would give nonunion members the ability to stop
unions from using their mandatory dues money for political
purposes.
President Clinton lent his support, as expected, to the effort.
In a letter dispatched to the Senate's leaders, he also urged
adoption of amendments to bring the bill in line with recently
passed House legislation that contains more sweeping restrictions
on campaign fund-raising and spending.
One provision added during the day would require more timely
reporting of fund-raising reports, including increased electronic
distribution. It was accepted on a vote of 77-20.
No sooner had Senate debate opened than McConnell sought to
place McCain on the defensive on an issue that the Arizonan has
made a centerpiece of his bid for the GOP presidential nomination.
McConnell quoted the fellow Republican as often having said that
``we are all corrupted'' by the current system of campaign fund
raising. He referred to a Web site page that cited a link between
soft money donations and wasteful ``pork-barrel spending.''
``If there is corruption, someone must be corrupt,'' he said,
challenging McCain to name names among the members of Congress.
``It's like saying the gang is corrupt but none of the gangsters is
corrupt,'' McConnell added.
Bennett, R-Utah, said, ``I plead guilty'' to seeking money for
one of the examples cited on the Web site, $2.2 million for federal
funding for sewer construction to coincide with the 2002 Winter
Olympics in his state.
But, noting that he cannot raise soft money, he challenged
McCain to answer these questions:
``Who gave the soft money. How much was it and where did it go''
that resulted in any decision to insert funds into a spending bill.
McCain, in general rebuttal, said he believed that soft money
was a ``key ingredient'' in wasteful spending and special interest
tax breaks. He cited a dictionary definition for corruption as
``the impairment of integrity'' and said he believed that unlimited
amounts of campaign money were ``impairing our integrity.''
The parliamentary maneuvering was intense at times.
As a result of a gambit by McConnell, supporters found
themselves in a position of needing a two-thirds vote of the
100-member Senate to break a filibuster _ even more than the 60
votes that have eluded them in previous years.
McCain's aides later said the maneuver was of little account,
though, since it could be readily reversed by the Senate.
McConissue, telling
reporters, ``We are not placing a requirement on the other side to
get a 67-vote threshold.
The debate opened to well-rehearsed arguments.
``What this fight is all about is taking the $100,000 check out
of American politics for good,'' said McCain, who routinely bucks
his own party's leadership on the campaign finance issue.
McConnell, who chairs the GOP senatorial campaign committee,
swiftly countered that the bill was an ``assault on freedom.''
Opposition to it, he said, was evidence of ``a constituency for
protecting constitutional freedom.''
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com