| <html> |
| <body> |
| <p>Dear Colleague:</p> |
| <p>"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people, by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations." James Madison</p> |
| <p>An excellent observation by one of our Founding Fathers. </p> |
| <p>While there are plenty of fitting examples that jump to mind, none seem as clearly relevant as the so-called campaign finance "reform" bills that are swirling about the halls of Congress. At its core, this issue is about the freedom of speech in America. It's about limiting the ability of individual citizens, and groups of citizens acting together, to criticize their government and their political leaders. King George would be proud.</p> |
| <p>But setting aside the serious Constitutional infringements and myriad of technical flaws contained in the bills, there are three bigger picture issues I'd like us to consider.</p> |
| <p>First, the "reformers" have been actively trying to convince you and the public that our votes are for sale. I disagree. As a new member of this institution, I have been impressed mightily by the strongly held, disparate views of my colleagues -- regardless of party affiliation. Even when we don't agree about the issues, I know our differences are based on philosophy and constituencies -- not money, not lobbyists, and not special interests. </p> |
| <p>From the first day of freshman orientation (and several times since then), we have been schooled on the ethical standards and expectations of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. There seem to be an abundance of existing rules that outline the proper relationship between members and outside interests, a process for filing grievances, and penalties for failing to adhere to those rules. Are the "reformers" suggesting that the members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct ignore violations? I believe each of the committee members take their responsibilities seriously and work diligently to protect the integrity of this institution.</p> |
| <p>Regarding the regulation of campaign finances, I'm sure we're all familiar with an independent agency called the Federal Election Commission. Currently, the commission's staff consists of around 350 people responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws amounting to 428 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations. For years, they have made an excellent case for increasing the number of employees and the amount of funding they need to adequately enforce the existing rules. Why haven't the "reformers" been as adamant about resolving this crisis. Why haven't the "reformers" insisted on vigorous enforcement of existing laws?</p> |
| <p>So now the "reformers" want to come along and dump a deluge of new pages of regulations on the FEC to enforce and for all of us to endure. Will the "reformers" work as hard to fund these new rules as they have to pass their legislation? At some point, the politics of this issue must stop and the governing must begin. </p> |
| <p>Finally, if the "reformers" really wanted to make a lasting impact -- to really make sure that soft money or hard money or special interests or labor unions do not unfairly influence elections and federal public policy, there's an easy answer: Send more of the decision-making responsibility back to the states and local units of government -- in other words, divest Washington, D.C. of that product which is supposedly being supplied to willing buyers -- power. </p> |
| <p>Personally, I believe a great first step would be to repeal the 17th Amendment, which provides for the direct election of U.S. Senators. That way, people could ensure that Senators would only be beholden to their own Governors and State Legislatures. But, that's a whole different can of worms to get into.</p> |
| <p>At the end of the day, I hope we can rise above the rhetoric and the hyperbole and vote against these thinly veiled attempts to limit our freedoms, indict the veracity of this body, and empower incumbents against the rightful ability of the average person to criticize or take issue with his or her government. Please join me in opposing the McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan legislation.</p> |
| <p>Sincerely,</p> |
| <p>C.L. "Butch" Otter</p> |
| <p>Member of Congress</p> |
| <p>"An unconditional right to say what one pleases about public affairs is what I consider to be the minimum guarantee of the First Amendment." Hugo Black</p> |
| </body> |
| </html> |
|
|
