The only 38 percent of the voters who turn out to vote are sending a message in that way. It is a campaign system where wealthy corporations can donate millions of dollars to political parties and drown out the voice of ordinary citizens. It is a campaign system where we as elected representatives have to spend an inordinate amount of time raising money, instead of addressing the issues. Campaign expenditures have just gotten out of hand. When you look at the low voter turnout and widespread cynicism, you realize that we have to deal with this key issue that has to do with trust in the Government.
People understand that their voices are being drowned out.
The opponents of campaign finance reform always trot out the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. Well, the Supreme Court back in 1976 under Buckley v. Valeo gave them some support for that line of reasoning, that speech as spending could not be restricted. That makes sense. But although it did not formally reexamine the issue of spending, the comments of the Justices give us cause for hope that they will allow some changes in the way campaign spending is regulated. Recently in an article in the Washington Post, former Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Newton Minow, and Craig LaMay, Northwestern University journalism professor, wrote a very interesting piece, pointing out, they say, that a lawyer arguing a case in the Supreme Court is limited to 30 minutes of oral argument.