Dollars as Free SpeechTo the editors:
As Kathleen Sullivan, dean of Stanford Law School, and others have argued, the explosion of "soft money" is in fact an unintended consequence of the post-Watergate contribution limits lauded by the editors (Editorial,"Bring Reform to the Floor," Jan. 5). Because donors cannot give all they would like to candidates, money is given to parties as well as independent organizations, many of which sponsor reckless ads for which candidates remain unaccountable.
The McCain-Feingold bill will make matters worse, as suggested by recent imbroglios in Germany under its heavily-regulated campaign finance regime. Donations to parties will be limited, but those to independent organizations--e.g., the notorious "Republicans for Clean Air"--will not. The Supreme Court has protected their spending as free speech, and rightfully so. By allowing the government to regulate political speech, we necessarily restrict the voices that will be heard and run the risk of further strengthening incumbent politicians.
Why not resolve the problem through more speech? Remove the contribution limits, establish full disclosure and allow the public to decide. Candidates will be accountable for the content of their ads and the source of their money.
Reihan Morshed Salam '01
Jan. 6, 2001
Bush on Borders
In your coverage of the inauguration of President George W. Bush, an interviewee misrepresented Bush's positions on immigration (News, "Hailing the Chief," Jan. 17). Contrary to the beliefs of Adams House chef and Dining Hall Workers Union official Edward B. Childs, President George W. Bush is pro-immigration.
Not only has he proposed dividing the Immigration and Naturalization Service into separate enforcement and naturalization divisions to help to eliminate the negative connotations of the agency, but he also supports speedier naturalization and issuing more employment visas.
Certainly Bush is for the enforcement of immigration laws to prevent illegal immigration, but so was former Vice-President Al Gore '69 and former President Clinton. The automatic assumption that Republicans must be anti-immigration is dangerous and false.
Mattie J. Germer '03
Jan. 22, 2001
Read more in Opinion
LettersRecommended Articles
-
Packaging the PresidencyAhh, wintertime. In our materialistic society, 'tis the season for conspicuous consumption. As the leaves crunch underfoot and the air
-
Bush Must End His Unilaterist AIDS policyTo the editors: In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, President Bush called for $15 billion to
-
An Empty Promise"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” reads the inscription on the Statue of
-
The 9/11 PresidentIn Jan. 2002, President Bush promised he wouldn’t use 9/11 for political gain. Now that his first campaign ads—filled with
-
Beating BushWhen the class of 2004 first stepped into Tercentenary Theatre during Freshman Week, Bill Clinton was still in the White