"Are you saying you didn't believe what you said then?"
"I said what the Republican leadership asked me to say."
"Do you believe PACs should be outlawed?"
"Of course not. I never did."
McConnell opposed the 2002 campaign finance reform bill that banned soft money (unlimited campaign contributions to political parties) and prevented special interest groups from spendinig corporate or labor union money on broadcast ads that mention a candidate just prior to an election. Political parties collected nearly $500 million in soft money contributions during the 2002 elections.
Shortly after the bill was signed by President Bush, several groups filed lawsuits, challenging the law's constitutionality. The AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association said the legislation's curbs on issue ads were an unconstitutional limit on free speech. McConnell and the Republican National Committee also filed lawsuits, asking for the law's ban on soft money contributions to be struck down.
In May 2003, a federal court ruled that the new law's ban on soft money was unconstitutional, allowing the political parties to resume raising the unlimited campaign contributions. The court restricted how soft money could be spent, however, prohibiting political parties from using it to run issue ads. The court also rejected the law's ban on issue ads by special interest groups in the weeks leading up to an election, instead adopting a stricter standard that applies to ads aired at any time.
The decision was automatically appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in a special extended session. In December 2003, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the soft money and issue ad restrictions.
As with most campaign "reforms," those with money quickly found ways around the new law's limitations, forming "527" advocacy groups to pump money into Congressional races and Presidential campaigns.
Politicians know it takes lots of money to win elections and even more money to stay in office.
From the time a member of the House or Senate is elected, they are already working on re-election, launching extensive fund-raising operations. Lavish campaign contributions, along with gifts, vacations to exotic locales and other outright bribes, lie the center of the corruption investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a continuing scandal that has already sent former California Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cuningham to jail, implicated scandal-ridden former House Majority Leader Tom Delay and threatens to bring down at least a half-dozen other members of both the House and Senate.
Candidates, and various organizations that either back or oppose them, are expected to spend more than a billion dollars this year in the November mid-term elections - breaking the record set just two years ago in the 2004 Presidential year.
The cost will continue to go up until something is done to stop the corruptive influence of money on the political process.
Part of the answer lies in what Mitch McConnell advocated in 1987 - the outright elimination of political action committees.
But getting rid of PACs, and their pervasive domination of the process, is only a start.
Steps must be taken to limit the endless cycle of campaigns, from 24/7 fundraising to non-stop electioneering. Some ideas:
CAP THE COSTS OF CAMPAIGNS: Perhaps no more than $500,000 for a House race, $1 million for a Senate campaign. Require newspapers, television and radio stations to provide space or time, pro-rated equally, for candidates to present their positions. Eliminate political ads.
"I said what the Republican leadership asked me to say."
"Do you believe PACs should be outlawed?"
"Of course not. I never did."
Shortly after the bill was signed by President Bush, several groups filed lawsuits, challenging the law's constitutionality. The AFL-CIO, American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association said the legislation's curbs on issue ads were an unconstitutional limit on free speech. McConnell and the Republican National Committee also filed lawsuits, asking for the law's ban on soft money contributions to be struck down.
In May 2003, a federal court ruled that the new law's ban on soft money was unconstitutional, allowing the political parties to resume raising the unlimited campaign contributions. The court restricted how soft money could be spent, however, prohibiting political parties from using it to run issue ads. The court also rejected the law's ban on issue ads by special interest groups in the weeks leading up to an election, instead adopting a stricter standard that applies to ads aired at any time.
The decision was automatically appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case in a special extended session. In December 2003, the Court ruled 5-4 to uphold the soft money and issue ad restrictions.
As with most campaign "reforms," those with money quickly found ways around the new law's limitations, forming "527" advocacy groups to pump money into Congressional races and Presidential campaigns.
Politicians know it takes lots of money to win elections and even more money to stay in office.
From the time a member of the House or Senate is elected, they are already working on re-election, launching extensive fund-raising operations. Lavish campaign contributions, along with gifts, vacations to exotic locales and other outright bribes, lie the center of the corruption investigation of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a continuing scandal that has already sent former California Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cuningham to jail, implicated scandal-ridden former House Majority Leader Tom Delay and threatens to bring down at least a half-dozen other members of both the House and Senate.
Candidates, and various organizations that either back or oppose them, are expected to spend more than a billion dollars this year in the November mid-term elections - breaking the record set just two years ago in the 2004 Presidential year.
The cost will continue to go up until something is done to stop the corruptive influence of money on the political process.
Part of the answer lies in what Mitch McConnell advocated in 1987 - the outright elimination of political action committees.
But getting rid of PACs, and their pervasive domination of the process, is only a start.
Steps must be taken to limit the endless cycle of campaigns, from 24/7 fundraising to non-stop electioneering. Some ideas:
CAP THE COSTS OF CAMPAIGNS: Perhaps no more than $500,000 for a House race, $1 million for a Senate campaign. Require newspapers, television and radio stations to provide space or time, pro-rated equally, for candidates to present their positions. Eliminate political ads.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
