Editor in chief: Laura Cadiz
Editorial Editors: Bret Jacobson, Laura Lucas
Newsroom: (541)346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
Thursday
March 2,2000
Volume 101, Issue 109
Eifierald
Granny D Goes to Washington
Bret
Jacobson
If you ever need evidence on how im
portant symbols are to Americans, just
examine how everyone gets so im
pressed 'when a 90-year-old woman
hikes a few — OK, 3,000 — miles across
country to make her case for campaign fi
nance reform. Campaign finance reform has
become the preeminent symbol for the re
vival of political interest by today’s college
students, who would be hurt terribly by
such reform.
Doris “Granny D” Haddock went to Con
gress to meet with a trio of national law
makers who support campaign finance re
form and lobby opponents of such plans.
That’s an awful long walk with an impor
tant message. “Wake up, America, recog
nize what is happening to your country and
do something about it,” she said, according
to Foxnews.com.
Indeed, many are waking up to the idea
of cleaning up American politics.
Arizona Sen. John McCain, whom you
might also know from his meteoric rise as
media darling in the presidential race, has
encapsulated his entire message into the
idea of getting the youth of America in
volved again in politics by cleaning up
Washington through campaign finance re
form.
The movement is genuine and well-in
tentioned to be sure. Just as McCain’s target
is the confidence and noble spirit of Ameri
can youths around college campuses, the
emotional response must be a positive one.
There’s no doubt that the man believes in
his mission wholeheartedly, and there’s no
feasible way to doubt the sincerity of a 90
year-old who’ll trek across America.
But there’s a difference between inspira
tional symbols such as Granny D’s jaunt or
McCain’s vault for position of leader of the
free world and the actual machinations of a
nation and the rights of free speech we must
protect.
The symbolism of the campaign finance
reform movement should only be recog
nized as a symbol for the ultimate goal of a
less corrupt, more noble and more account
able government, and should definitely not
be carried out in any practical sense.
The execution of this well-intended re
form would cripple the free speech rights of
about 250 million citizens. And while we’ll
not dare kid ourselves into believing even a
majority of these are interested enough in
the political workings of our nation to open
their wallets, the right to do so must be pro
tected just as we protect other forms of free
political speech.
Some may argue that the benefits would
outweigh the risk of corroding the right for
individuals to give to their political repre
sentatives. To that assertion I must disagree
with the very marrow of my bones. There’s
no payoff worthy of a gamble regarding the
United States Constitution and our Bill of
Rights, and we do not yet exist in such a
state in which the people are oppressed.
So where does this leave the college stu
dents McCain hopes to reinvigorate and
reinspire? Right back where they were,
whiny and apathetic until a real, legal solu
tion comes along.
The road to hell is paved with good in
tentions, so don’t let yourself be walked
there by a nice 90-year-old lady on the gold
en brick road of campaign finance reform.
Bret Jacobson is an editorial editor for the Emerald.
His views do not necessarily represent those of the
newspaper. He can be reached via e-mail at bjacob
so@gladstone.uoregon.edu.
Bryan Dixon Emerald
Letters to the editor
Emerald is too negative
I would like to thank all of you
who have taken time out of your
lives to dissect the C.J. Gabbe and
Peter Larson campaign. It’s re
freshing to see the bickering and
bantering around another year of
elections. Maybe I’m crazy, but
rather than bash a campaign that
has proven experience and the
will to lead the ASUO, why not
highlight the merits of the other
candidates? From day one Gabbe
and Larson acted as worthy candi
dates by reaching out to students
to find the issues most pressing on
our campus. They never lowered
themselves to negative campaign
ing but focused on the issues they
would work on. Their reputations
as upright individuals have been
mutilated from an incident in
which they sought input from a
segment of the campus population
underrepresented in campus pol
itics. Damn them for reaching out
to students.
On top of the bashing, I find
your editorial, “Students in the
Crossfire” (ODE, Mar. 1), extreme
ly distasteful when you compare
the Constitution Court’s decision
of allowing Gabbe and Larson to
remain on the ballot to that of a
rapist let off despite DNA evi
dence. I think victims of sexual as
sault also find this comparison in
poor taste.
I ask you, the students of this in
stitution, to seek out fact from fic
tion. After clearing off the layer of
muck, you will find that Gabbe
and Larson would lead a success
ful ASUO in protecting your inter
ests. Don’t let propaganda sway
you. Vote for the right reasons,
VOTE FOR C.J. AND PETER.
Brian Tanner
political science
Gabbe, Larson irresponsible
I realize that campaigns are es
sential to student government, but
dirty politics has no place on the
University campus. I am tired of
seeing environmentally damaging
yellow signs that support unethi
cal candidates. It is ridiculous that
C.J. Gabbe and Peter Larson slip by
on a technicality. I am personally
insulted that Gabbe and Larson
have not made an effort to be ac
countable for their “mistake.” If it
was an honest mistake, why did
they not apologize and own up to
it? The election rules are clearly
presented to all the candidates
and there is NO reason why any
literate, semi-intelligent person
should not understand the content
of the rules. The “lefty” candidate
understood, and he probably read
it while sitting in a right-handed
desk. If Gabbe and Larson don’t
understand the election rules,
how would they be able to read
and understand the Green Tape
Notebook? Why should we trust
our student fees to irresponsible
people?
Jay Breslow and Holly Magner,
you have my vote because you
have run a positive, non-slander
ous, honest, ethical campaign,
stressing issues that relate to me
as a student. Hey, Gabbe and Lar
son ... do you guys like Nixon?
Check him out: He’s just your
style, and I heard he was “not a
crook.” Boys, I don’t even want to
give you the chance to say some
thing even close to that. Vote
Breslow and Magner. They don’t
like Nixon, and neither should
you.
Ruth McDevitt
biology