Identifying the Arguments

Document 1

John McCain, US Senator (R-AZ), stated in an article titled "On the Issues: Lobbying & Ethics Reform" on his official candidate website (accessed Jan. 8, 2008):

"Most Americans understand that competitive elections in a free country require money. Since campaigns require spending funds to communicate with voters, they know we can never take money completely out of politics, nor should we. Americans have a right to support the candidates and the parties they endorse, including financially if they so choose.

But what most Americans worry about profoundly is corporations or individuals with huge checks seeking the undue influence on lawmakers that such largesse is intended to purchase. That is why John McCain has fought to enforce long-standing prohibitions on corporate and union contributions to federal political parties, for sensible donation limits, disclosure of how candidates and campaigns are funded, and the diligent enforcement of these common sense rules that promote maximum public participation in the political process and limit opportunities for corruption."
Jan. 8, 2008 John McCain

Document 2

Bob Barr, former US House Representative (R-GA), in a July 8, 2008 article titled "Bob Barr on Brody File: McCain Can't Be Trusted on Judges" on CBNNews.com, stated:

"I know that many conservatives for example say well we have to vote for McCain even though we don't like him because he'll give us different better judges. Well, ask people to think a little bit about what they're saying. John McCain gave us McCain/Feingold [S.27 "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001"] which is the most anti-freedom piece of legislation in many many years. And John McCain appointed judges could be certainly expected to be of the same mindset that would support and uphold intrusion into the first amendment such as McCain Feingold."

July 8, 2008 Bob Barr

Document 3

Document 4

Ron Paul, US Representative (R-TX), stated in a Dec. 22, 2003 article titled "'Campaign Finance Reform' Muzzles Political Dissent" on his official Congressional website (Texas Straight Talk):

"In a devastating blow to political speech, the Supreme Court recently upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill passed by Congress last year. The legislation will do nothing to curb special interest power or reduce corruption in Washington, but it will make it harder for average Americans to influence government. 'Campaign finance reform' really means the bright-line standard of free speech has been replaced by a murky set of regulations and restrictions that will muzzle political dissent and protect incumbents. Justice Scalia correctly accuses the Court of supporting a law 'That cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government?This is a sad day for freedom of speech.'

Two important points ignored by the Court should be made. First, although the new campaign rules clearly violate the First amendment, they should be struck down primarily because Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all. Article II authorizes only the regulation of elections, not campaigns, because our Founders knew Congress might pass campaign laws that protect incumbency. This is precisely what McCain-Feingold represents: blatant incumbent protection sold to the public as noble reform.

Second, freedom of the press applies equally to all Americans, not just the institutional, government-approved media. An unknown internet blogger, a political party, a candidate, and the New York Times should all enjoy the same right to political speech. Yet McCain-Feingold treats the mainstream press as some kind of sacred institution rather than the for-profit industry it is. Why should giant media companies be able to spend unlimited amounts of money to promote candidates and issues, while an organization you support cannot? The notion of creating a preferred class of media, with special First Amendment rights, is distinctly elitist and un-American."Dec. 22, 2003 Ron Paul

Read the above documents

1. Identify the issue

2. Fill out a T-chart listing the details of both arguments.  These documents represent opposing viewpoints on campaign finance

3. Write 2 short paragraphs referencing the documents.  Identify the details (from your chart that support the author/artists viewpoint.  Be sure to reference the document #.

a. 1 paragraph supporting finance restrictions
b. 1 paragraph eliminating restrictions