Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
OBASOHAN: PACS -- Political Action Committees -- do they represent a negative influence in the American political system? My opponent, Mr. Falcon, will be making the argument...
FALCON: That the First Amendment protects the right to association, freedom of speech, and what we're trying to do is get people involved in the political process, and Political Action Committees are a way for people to get together and influence politics.
OBASOHAN: These PACS represent a danger to this democracy. I mean, do you know what PACS are? These are financial extensions of interest groups.
FALCON: So basically, what you're arguing about is the fact that there are people out there with money and power, and you're resentful of the fact that they have the money and power to influence our policies.
OBASOHAN: I'm not even using the word influence, they are buying political access. This representative democracy is now being bought and paid for by these PACS.
FALCON: Well, this is a debate. So our students and others who watch these debates will be able to be the judges for themselves. Everything I've read confirms, at least for me, the fact that there's no direct connection between campaign contributions and legislation or policy outputs.
OBASOHAN: You must be a Republican. What are you talking about?
FALCON: The same Political Action Committees that you're so worried about and afraid of, they give money to both sides on most issues; am I right about that? They give money to Republicans and Democrats. Doesn't matter who.
OBASOHAN: I think you are wrong, because these PACS are buying access. You are correct that they could be Democrats or Republican. It doesn't really matter, but the focus is on PACS. They are simply buying.
FALCON: Well, we're college professors. We have office hours. Our students come to our office hours, they have access. Does that determine their grade? No. They don't get grades just because --
OBASOHAN: But if the --
FALCON: -- access -- it might grease the wheel, but it doesn't determine the output.
OBASOHAN: Now, you think if my students give me money, it won't have some influence on their grade?
FALCON: Well-
OBASOHAN: It's not legal.
FALCON: How much are they giving you?
OBASOHAN: They haven't yet, but if they did, it would make some influence. It's a natural kind of thing for me to push them ahead. So that's what PACS are doing.
FALCON: The assumption is that people who take money are corrupt and being bought. Money is the mother's milk of politics. Politicians need money, candidates need money to run for office and to win and to be competitive. They don't use the money to make up their minds; they use the money to express themselves.
OBASOHAN: I have no problem in understanding the influence of money, but I have a problem when PACS use it to buy influence. They are there for doing what? Trying to endanger this representative kind of democracy. What happens to those of us without money? Are we being listened to? Obviously not, because we have no money.
FALCON: People with no money have more important problems than whether or not they can donate to a campaign.
OBASOHAN: Oh, we're not being represented then.
FALCON: Anybody can contribute money to any group.
OBASOHAN: How many poor PACS do you know? There are no poor PACS.
FALCON: All Politic Actions Committees do is pool money. They pool money from various resources. And the same PACS you're talking about could be PACS that represent teachers, nurses, firefighters, people who work in the medical professions, et cetera. So you're making it sound like they're all corporate interests and people who have so much power that they have --
OBASOHAN: I think they are -- PACS, politicians, do they respond to those of us who are at the bottom or do they respond to business and corporations?
FALCON: The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Yes.
OBASOHAN: Yeah.
FALCON: If something's not broken, don't fix it. Of course politicians are going to respond to inputs. They're going to respond to people who are shaking their tree.
OBASOHAN: Money is the factor here. I'm suggesting to you, Professor Falcon, that money is endangering this democracy, and you can blame PACS for that.
FALCON: Well under federal --
OBASOHAN: The PACS are doing this.
FALCON: --under federal campaign laws, we have limits on individual contributions. Corporations can't give money directly to candidates. Unions can't give money directly to candidates.
OBASOHAN: I mean, there is a limit they can give directly to candidates, but there is a limit. But can they go outside that limit and spend millions and millions of dollars.
FALCON: But that's not --
OBASOHAN: Indirectly benefiting candidates--
FALCON: See, but that's not the issue that you bought up. You just brought up the idea that Political Action Committees themselves, that PACS are harmful to American politics.
OBASOHAN: Yes, they are.
FALCON: And what I'm saying is that PACS are a generic, a natural development in our society where people have to pool resources. We have credit unions --
OBASOHAN: What do you mean "natural"?
FALCON: -- we have money market accounts. That's basically people being able --
OBASOHAN: They're not natural. This country wasn't born with PACS. This is a new invention by corporate America to try to seek influence on the political process.
FALCON: Well, since you brought up the founding of this country, let's go back to the mischief of factions that Madison warned us about. And he agrees early on, we don't solve the problem created by factions by banning factions. That's impossible, because of the death it will cause to liberty. You can control the mischief that they cause to an extent. So to PACS --
OBASOHAN: Jefferson doesn't have all the answers. I say get rid of all of the -- Jefferson doesn't have all the answers. This is 2005. They should be banned, because they create a danger to this democracy. Can you imagine this thing called representative democracy? It's no longer in place. This is representative corporate America.
FALCON: You can argue that it should be banned all you want, but the First Amendment clearly protects the right of association, the right of assembly to petition government, and the right to free speech. So when you say "ban PACS," you're basically talking about a nice little bow tie around most of our essential freedoms in the First Amendment.
OBASOHAN: That means -- unless you assume that all these rights are absolute, but they're not absolute.
FALCON: Have you heard the expression, "you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater"?
OBASOHAN: Sometimes you may have to do that.
FALCON: Your solution is worse than this is.
OBASOHAN: No, in this case, politically, I think PACS represent -- there's no doubt about it. They represent a danger to -- if you understand the representative kind of democracy we have in this country.
FALCON: If even if you ban -- even if you prohibit Political Action Committees, you're still going to have wealthy individuals, you're still going to have just people in general that are going to be donating money into the process. What's next? Because obviously you're so worried about the impact of money on politics you're going to go after PACS first. Who's next? Slippery slope here. Who are you going to go after next to exclude from the process in the name of democracy?
OBASOHAN: Anyone who wants to buy influence by use of money should be illegal.
FALCON: But isn't casting a vote for somebody, isn't that an expectation?
OBASOHAN: That is not money. That is not money. I mean it's a civil kind of responsibility. I took it upon myself, I bought the gasoline, I drove to the polling booth, I voted.
FALCON: When I vote for somebody on a piece of paper, that the state provides by the way, am I sending a message? Am I sending a signal in telling the person I voted for "I want you to do something for me, and if you don't, I'm going to hold you responsible? " How is that really different quality-wise?
OBASOHAN: By the way, if you don't like that piece of paper, you could cross it out and write your own piece of paper. Assuming you don't want Obasohan, you want Falcon, you can write Falcon. So forget the paper. But I'm suggesting that if you are minimizing --
FALCON: How about time?
OBASOHAN: If you are minimizing the role of PACS every so --
FALCON: Let's also regulate the amount of time that people volunteer for campaigns then.
OBASOHAN: That is voluntary, voluntary.
FALCON: Yeah, but some people -- you're complaining that many people have more money than others. I'm saying some people have more time than others.
OBASOHAN: No, I don't have a problem --
FALCON: You have all these old people who -- no offense to any of my students --you have people who are older who volunteer, because they don't work anymore. They've got extra time on their hands.
OBASOHAN: I don't have a problem with money. I have a problem with using money to influence the political process.
FALCON: Let's set limits. One hour of volunteer time per citizen a year, per election cycle. How's that?
OBASOHAN: You must be one of the minorities in America who are filthy rich who don't believe that PACS have a negative influence on the American political system. There is no doubt about it. The reason there is a lower voter turnout in this country is because most Americans now believe, clearly, money does influence the outcome.
FALCON: I'm going to pull a very, very sneaky parliamentary debate tactic against you right now.
OBASOHAN: Go ahead.
FALCON: You never answered my question that I asked you a long time ago. Do you believe that people in Congress, the United States Senate, are being bribed every time they take a campaign contribution?
OBASOHAN: Absolutely. I mean, we don't call it bribe, we call it influence. They are bribing them.
FALCON: So when the National Rifle Association gives money to Democrats and Republicans, what are they buying? What are they buying?
OBASOHAN: They are bribing. They are buying access. Do you know that the NRA now goes and writes policy? They are now in Congress writing the laws in the room.
FALCON: They can write them, but then most legislation is written by interest groups. Let's not be unfair about that one.
OBASOHAN: How many poor people can actually go in there and write pieces of legislation?
FALCON: You could tomorrow.
OBASOHAN: I don't have any money, Mr. Falcon. I won't be allowed in, and with the name Obasohan I wouldn't be allowed in. But if I have a stack of money, yes.
FALCON: There's nothing stopping the average American from going to a city council meeting; to a board of trustees meeting; to a county board of supervisors meeting; or to Congress knocking on doors and having the same access that people from these scary interest groups and PACS that you're so worried about.
OBASOHAN: On the face of it you are correct, but --
FALCON: Thank you for agreeing with me.
OBASOHAN: -- you're assuming that most Americans are politically astute. We are a politically naive society. Most of us don't understand.
FALCON: Then why do you want to regulate out of existence a group of Americans that are interested, are informed, and want to participate?
OBASOHAN: To bring the majority into the system, you need to ban these PACS, because they clearly represent a danger to this democracy.
FALCON: Well, money in politics is like water: it will find the cracks. So, good luck. We tried ever since the 1970s, in fact, we tried back in the 1920s and 30s to ban the influence of money in politics, and every time we do, it's like squeezing that tube of toothpaste. It just moves it around.
OBASOHAN: The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law --
FALCON: Created independent expenditures, and I think, what, 527s.
OBASOHAN: No, but the 527 -- but it is said it's a stepping stone to correcting this mistake. If you assume that money is okay, that you can -- if you have money you can buy access. That is the American way. You are excluding the majority of Americans and you are creating a disease called voter apathy. Most Americans believe that they no longer have a stake in this democracy, because of more PACS.
FALCON: And what you're suggesting is that the solution is to take even more people out of the process.
OBASOHAN: No, no, no, no, no, is to give back this democracy back to the people.
FALCON: But you're making it sound like --
OBASOHAN: It has been stolen from them by PACS.
FALCON: But you're making it sound like they're not the participating, because they've been squeezed out by organized interest and Political Action Committees.
OBASOHAN: That's what I'm saying.
FALCON: What I'm saying is it's just as likely that you'll eliminate PACS, you'll weaken special interest groups, and we'll still not have an electorate constituency of American people that are active in politics and then think it makes a difference.
OBASOHAN: PACS you and I know, Professor Falcon, is a new invention. It is a troubling kind of scenario for us. We're probably not going to agree back here, but you students can continue to debate this as to the role of PACS in this democracy of ours.