Tuesday, October 29, 1996
PROPOSITION:
Campaign finance reform gives power back to the peopleBy Robin
Pendoley
Would you consider me flighty if I said that I agree with both
Jake Sexton and the readers who recently expressed their opinions
here in Viewpoint on the validity of voting? I think that Jake was
right in his recent Bruin article on the validity of voting. Voting
for candidates doesn’t mean much these days because of the
corporations and "fat cats" that own our politicians through their
campaign contributions. I also agree with the letters of Andrew
Westhall and Darrin Hurwitz that appeared in Viewpoint accusing
Jake of giving voters the wrong message; voting still does matter
and we still can use our right to vote as a voice for our
concerns.
So, how can I agree with both sides of the issue if they are
opposing each other? Get closer to that paper. Put your nose in it.
Do you see it yet? They are arguing two different issues!
Jake discusses the "wealthy individuals and corporations" who
"choose candidates who will do what the companies want them to do"
once the individual or corporation pays for the election campaign
of that politician. In turn, you watch the debates, study the
issues and the platforms, and pick a candidate. You register, go to
the polls and elect your candidate. The only problem is that once
this candidate is in office, he or she answers to the campaign
contributors rather than the voters. Jake presents these truths and
comes to the valid conclusion that our votes mean nothing because
the politicians aren’t thinking of the people but of the special
interest groups that fund their campaigns. Go on with your bad
self, Jake!
Darrin and Andrew assert the position that voting is not only
valid, but is a very important part of the democracy that we have
developed as our government. Both Darrin and Andrew delivered proof
with the ’92 and ’94 elections that voting is important, even for
the average college student. I don’t think that either Darrin or
Andrew are naive enough to believe that politicians are not heavily
influenced by their campaign contributors, i.e. corruption. They
both demonstrate that voting is still effective despite the
corruption that does exist. Andrew, Darrin, you guys are cool!
So, why did I bother writing this when there are midterms to
study for? Well, I wanted to answer Andrew’s call to arms: "I think
it’s time for you to drop the pen and pick up the sword." Hey,
looky here, our sword is already on the ballot! Proposition 212 is
sharp and ready to be unsheathed to cut through the corruption and
get Jake back to the voting booth.
Proposition 212 is campaign finance reform in its purest form.
Utilizing four major methods of reform, Proposition 212 permits
only 25 percent of campaign funds to come from outside that
candidate’s district, eliminates corporate campaign contributions,
revokes tax breaks for lobbying costs and limits individual
contribution levels to effectively level the playing field of
campaign contributions.
What does this mean for you, Joe Student Voter? This means that
when we elect candidates to office they no longer have heavy
campaign contributors to answer to when considering how to vote on
legislation. Who do they listen to then, you ask? Why, you, of
course! Gee, that sounds like … why, YES … it’s DEMOCRACY!
Heeding the words and logic of Jake will lead you to voting yes
on Proposition 212. Heeding the words and logic of Andrew, Darrin
and lil’ ol’ me will get you to the polls. Vote YES on Proposition
212.