The Enemy of the People?
by Clay Risen

Campaign finance reform: Everyone wants it; few of us really understand it. Most Americans flip the channel when it comes on the news, even though they know it may affect the future of the American election process. It is in the papers every day; it is in the average American head for about 5 seconds. Despite it being what Rep. Jerrold Nadler (a bit hyperbolically) called the biggest political issue since the Civil War, it is probably the second-least discussed topic at parties, just beating out shuffleboard and right behind urine samples.

Which makes the current debate in Congress a little ironic. It seems that as the issue makes its yearly trek way through committees, every congressperson stakes their argument on whether or not "the people" are for it. In fact, the more opposed a member is to reform, the more they claim that the sanctity of individuals' political freedom and the "will of the people" is at risk. Opposing the current Shays-Meehan bill (which bans soft-money contributions), Rep. David Dreier said that "for democracy to flourish a free people must be able to express their political views without government restriction."

And Rep. John Doolittle, who actually favors lifting all limits on campaign contributions, compared efforts at campaign finance reform to the squashing of ants, the ants presumably being the voices of the American public (an unfortunate metaphor for a guy who would allow corporations and PACs to spend untold millions on direct campaign contributions).

Scary, huh? It gets worse. For the anti-reformists, it's organizations like the AFL-CIO and teachers' unions and Ralph Nader, with their ability to mobilize millions of volunteers and voters, who present the real threat to democracy (Phil Gramm said as much during a 1997 speech on the Senate floor). In this logic, pro-business PACs and corporations must be able to contribute to their hearts' content because otherwise big mean liberal groups will shut out the voices of average Americans like oh, say, Richard Scaife or the tobacco industry.

At first glance, these congressmen sound like contemporary Marie Antoinettes, fooling themselves into thinking that the public really enjoys the elitist exclusion of modern American politics. But what seems like naivete is actually a very clever example of postmodern populism, where the political elite invoke things like "the will of the people" and "individual rights" to protect big business and other moneyed interests, the very things that pose the greatest threats to those rights.

Contradiction? Not at all. In fact, these days it seems the "people" have seemingly very little say in determining what their "will" is. In politics, there is no truth; only power, and those in power can call whatever they want the "Truth" because no one is going to hold them accountable. Indeed, the opposition to campaign finance reform ultimately centers on defending the Congressional and business elites' power to define American political discourse. As long as the real public interest doesn't matter, then they can call whatever they want "the will of the people."

And so the current campaign finance reform debate is not only an exercise in postmodern politics, but it may very well determine its future. If the anti-reformists win out, then they will continue to flaunt their discursive power, and pretty soon we'll see everything from target F-22 funding to mohair subsidies being justified as populist projects. However, if the reformists win, then perhaps we as a people will begin to gain back what has quietly been taken away from us, our voice in American politics.

That is, unless we would rather discuss urine samples.

E-mail Clay Risen at risenc@yahoo.com.