Table of Contents
| Jinn Home Page
| Search
| Net-Links
Voices
| Heresies
| Vectors
| Pacific Pulse
| The Americas
| California
| Movements
| Civil Conflicts
| YO!

It's Time To Junk Law That Equates Political Spending With Free Speech
By Jennifer Rockne
Date: 12-11-00
Despite remarkable progress in every sort of endeavor, women are
still woefully underrepresented in Congress. The basic problems here
are money and incumbency, which are intimately entwined, and changes
in that situation are unlikely under current law. PNS commentator
Jennifer Rockne is the assistant director of reclaimdemocracy.org.
The new Congress will include a record number of women -- yet they
still
hold only 13 percent of House seats and 25 percent of Senate seats.
With all the progress women have made to dispel social stigma and sex
discrimination, why is their representation in Congress so minimal?
The greatest single factor in getting and keeping a Congressional seat
is
money. And so long as we accept the 1976 Supreme Court decision in
Buckley v. Valeo, which holds spending money is a kind of free speech,
women -- the majority of Americans -- will be underrepresented.
In that case, the court stated that political campaign spending could
not
be regulated, and contributions could be limited only in certain narrow
ways. This effectively legitimized the practice of corporations and
political action committees funding the politicians, parties and
campaigns of their choosing -- and reaping legislative favors.
Incumbents raise funds more readily than challengers simply because
they
are in office, and House members typically start fundraising for
re-election immediately after they are elected. Most senators easily
spend the equivalent of two years of their six-year terms fundraising,
according to Washington insider and former Cabinet member Joseph
Califano.
Historically, when there is an open Congressional seat, women have
fared
as well as men, but incumbents tend to win -- only six sitting
representatives were defeated in this year's election. Of the 33 women
major party candidates challenging male House incumbents, two were
deemed
winners.
The problem is not funding -- women candidates raise campaign money on
a
par with men and have done so since the 1980s, in part due to
contributions from PACs and donor networks. The problem is that
incumbents can raise at least twice as much as challengers, allowing
them
greater media access and other exposure to the public.
Despite their woefully disproportionate representation in the Congress,
women have played a vital role with respect to issues such as sex
discrimination, which entered the law books because those who had
experienced it firsthand championed them.
Title IX, which denies federal funds to schools that discriminate based
on sex, might not exist today if a woman in Congress hadn't saved it
from
near-defeat. Women made federal law on equal pay and funding of daycare
for poor women. Historically, women in Congress raise issues of health,
poverty, family, and social concerns that often are dwarfed by military
or foreign policy issues.
If money is used to rig the game, obviously removing its importance
would
level the board to increase representation for the underrepresented.
The Supreme Court tends to react to popular movements and the social
climate -- as it did in response to civil unrest during the Civil
Rights
Era -- rather than lead the way. Our elected and appointed government
officials will not make the changes needed to enable a government
worthy
of the name democracy, but an organized public will.
Whether our goal is achieving equal representation for all Americans,
or
simply a less corrupt government, reversing Buckley v. Valeo and
dispelling the money-equals-speech dogma must be part of the foundation
of change. Doing so may not ensure fairer representation, but it would
help return politics to the people, and open the field to a greater
diversity of players, so that we might have a Congress that looks more
like the constituency it purportedly represents.

Pacific News Service,
660 Market Street, Room 210, San Francisco, CA 94104,
tel: (415) 438-4755.
Jinn Magazine: <http://www.pacificnews.org/jinn/>
Email:
<pacificnews@pacificnews.org>
Copyright © 1900 Pacific News Service. All Rights Reserved.
Please do not reprint our stories without our permission.
This article is available for reprint.
For rates and information, call (415) 438-4755 or e-mail
<pacificnews@pacificnews.org>
|