CONTACTING US
NEWSROOM: ADDRESS:
(541)346-5511 Oregon Daily Emerald
E-MAIL P.0 BOX 3159
ode@oregon. uoregon.edu Eugene. Oregon 97403
ONLINE EDITION: darkwing.uoregon.edu/-ode
Perspectives
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Sarah Kickler
EDITORIAL EDITOR
Mike Schmierbach
NIGHT EDITOR
Holly Sanders
Gleaning up campaign financing
AN EMERALD EDITORIAL
Effective campaign finance reform requires changing the
Constitution and putting an end to private and corporate donations
Buckley must die.
In this case, the Buckley in
question is not the conservative
gentleman with the funny sound
ing voice but Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976
Supreme Court opinion that banned caps
on campaign spending (but not individual
contributions) as violating free speech.
Effective campaign finance reform will
eventually require a constitutional
amendment that would override Buckley.
The reality of our political system is such
that only reform that eliminates the role
private and corporate contributors play in
the process will ensure some degree of
democracy.
Right now, Congress is examining the
campaign finance situation. The most
widely circulated proposal, the McCain
Feingold bill, seems to be slipping into
oblivion. This is neither surprising nor
necessarily bad.
McCain-Feingold would ban so-called
“soft money” contributions to political
campaigns. Soft money is given to a politi
cal party, which is supposed to spend the
money on party building, whatever that
means. Increasingly, however, this money
is being raised by candidates and given to
parties with the explicit expectation that it
be spent to promote that same candidate.
Soft money allows corporations to
avoid laws that ban them from contribut
ing to political campaigns. Moreover, it
enables both corporations and political ac
tion committees, or PACs, to ignore contri
bution caps currently in place.
Eliminating this money and the prob
lems that stem from it would certainly be
an important step toward effective reform
of the system. According to Professor
Jamin Raskin, writing in the May 5 Na
tion, the major parties spent almost $90
million just on the presidential campaign
in 1996. That sum is in addition to money
raised within the confines of traditional
fund-raising apparatuses, and the money
spent by parties is dominated by special
interest donations.
McCain-Feingold is not enough to fix
this system, however. Raskin reports that
the two major candidates also spent $63
million of privately donated money. Rais
ing this level of funding, a requirement in
today’s political landscape, severely com
promises the integrity of the candidates.
A campaign donation isn’t the same
thing as a bribe. Nevertheless, there is no
question donations influence political be
havior. If candidates want to win an elec
tion, they need donations; if they want do
nations, they need to appear politically
useful to the people who give money.
Massive contributions from pro-business
interests have led to a political situation
in which most of our “leaders” argue for
the same corporate mentality, regardless
of their party.
There is a proposal that would come far
closer to fixing this problem. In Maine,
voters approved a proposal that would
provide for publicly financed campaigns.
Candidates are required to show a mini
mum threshold of support by collecting
$5 donations. Once in the system, candi
dates would agree to stop soliciting pri
vate donations and soft money; in return,
they would receive state money, free
broadcast time and access to a public de
bate.
According to Raskin, such a proposal
has public support on a national level. He
cites a 1996 survey in which 68 percent of
respondents said they would be in favor of
a system similar to that proposed in
Maine.
In addition, proposals have been made
at the national level to enact a federally fi
nanced campaign system. Senators John
Kerry, Paul Wellstone and John Glenn an
nounced they would work toward a simi
lar proposal at the federal level, titling
their bill “Clean Money, Clean Elections.”
Oregon’s Representative Peter DeFazio an
nounced in July he would introduce a
similar bill in the House.
According to DeFazio’s office, the pro
posal would cost roughly $2 billion annu
ally. A lot of money, but small by federal
budget standards. In addition, the amount
of unnecessary spending enacted by legis
lators soliciting increased donations is
probably far greater than $2 billion.
Unfortunately, aside from a few press
releases, the plan has received no atten
tion from the press. Debate has focused on
McCain-Feingold and the hearings that are
investigating President Clinton’s fund
raising efforts.
The reason is simple: Clean Money
threatens to reduce corporate influence,
eliminate massive campaign war chests
that transform into retirement funds when
candidates leave, reduce the power of in
cumbency and introduce a major third
party factor to elections.
Third parties could prove crucial to
shaking up American politics. By provid
ing ideas more radical than those pro
posed by the mainstream, corporate-con
trolled politicians of today, third-party
candidates could widen the range of is
sues being debated and increase the inter
est of many marginalized voters in the po
litical process. Whether or not you
support groups like the Green Party, they
are still admirable for their ability to place
environmental issues on the political
agenda and force Democrats to acknowl
edge the left in their party.
Motivated by fear, federal lawmakers
are reluctant to give up their privileged
position by enacting effective campaign fi
nance reform. This reluctance points to
the biggest flaw in the Clean Money pro
posals: They’re voluntary. Candidates
who are reluctant to enact such a system
are likely to be reluctant to participate in
it.
While the proposal accounts for this
possibility by pledging to match an oppo
nent’s privately raised funds for partici
pating candidates, such a solution would
be expensive and still might fail. The most
obvious solution is to make participation
mandatory.
This is where Buckley comes into play.
Without a constitutional amendment
overriding free-speech protections of po
litical donations, even the most effective
proposals for finance reform are rendered
impotent. And if such reforms are ren
dered limp, the political system as a
whole will continue to fall.
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses may be
sent to ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Squirrels are hungry
With regard to Eric Collins’
article “Squirrels may face nut
shortage” (ODE, Nov. 10) where
he expressed my concerns
about the scarcity of acorns on
campus this year, some observa
tions are needed.
When Tim King, the Univer
sity campus and grounds super
visor, said that the acorn crop
was good, he was not talking
about this year. He said to me
on the phone that he had meant
that the acorn yield was good
on normal years. He said that he
had not gone out this fall to see
what was happening. In fact,
there are very few acorns any
where. A couple of trees by Su
san Campbell Hall have a
mediocre crop, and I counted
15 squirrels working there at the
same time. Two trees near the
main entrance to Mac Court had
a decent crop, but most of those
acorns were crushed by cars,
and what is left is pretty un
reachable for the squirrels who
have to cross University Street
to get them one by one. Some
squirrels are digging acorns up
this fall. They’re usually bury
ing them in November to have
for the whole year.
The squirrels don’t look mal
nourished now because they
have been living on last year’s
crop. My concern is about the
coming year. It’s true that squir
rels eat other things such as
bark, fruit, berries, fungi and in
sects, but these are things that
they find in a completely natur
al environment. In such a place
trees get old and fall and as they
break down, insects work the
wood, the bark falls apart, fungi
grow, berries take over as part of
the ecosystem, and so on. Here
we have a manicured campus
with very few fruits or berries
where insects are kept to a mini
mum. When any trees show
signs of old age, they are cut
down and hauled away. The
campus is not a wild environ
ment and the squirrels don’t
have adjoining forests where
they can go when things are
bad.
To complicate matters several
oak trees have been cut down in
campus in recent years. Have
they been replaced with new
ones? I wish the University
would recognize that the squir
rels are a part of the campus and
that in such an artificial envi
ronment, wildlife management
is needed and should be more
than the removal of dead or
bothersome animals. This year
the squirrels need the acorns
and they are not here. I person
ally feel that we should give
them some help when a bad
year like this one happens. If
anybody out there knows of an
area of Eugene where there is a
definite excess of acorns or nuts
(please be sure that it is really
an excess because I would not
want to take them away from
the local animals there), give me
a call. I will drive there some
time with my station wagon and
get a load or two to scatter
around here.
Luis Verano
Romance languages
Deserves coverage
Last Sunday, Nov. 2, a group
of 82 greek members, with rep
resentatives from Delta Sigma
Phi, Phi Delta Theta, Kappa Sig
ma, Sigma Kappa, Gamma Phi
Beta, Delta Tau Delta, Theta
Chi, Delta Gamma and Chi
Omega, went to the North Jetty
of Florence to participate in the
second annual Delta Sigma Phi
Beach Cleanup. With garbage
bags supplied by Stop Oregon
Litter and Vandalism and the
cooperation of coastal weather,
we were able to collect garbage
along a two-mile stretch of
beach.
While we recognize that this
isn’t the only activity of its sort,
it stands as another example of
positive community involve
ment on the part of the greek
system that is overlooked by the
media in favor of other topics,
regardless of their connection or
importance to this campus.
Philanthropies being over
looked time and time again
wouldn’t be as big a deal if
every negative, isolated occur
rence wasn’t jumped on be
cause it’s an easy story with
reader appeal. The Emerald
needs to recognize that what it
chooses to include or not in
clude has a large effect on how
the student body perceives not
just the greek system but every
organization on campus. If
pumpkin drops, squirrels and
M&M’s are more of an issue
than students volunteering time
and effort throughout the com
munity, then somebody needs
to reevaluate their priorities.
David Hall
Delta Sigma Phi
philanthropy chair