To the editor:<!—->.

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

To the editor:

Ted Strickland’s pitch for campaign finance reform seemed more than a little odd. And left out some important facts.

He grouses for a while about the lobbyists staying in D.C. while congress went home (why this upsets him I don’t know, if congress has gone home to "work," who are they lobbying?), then squawks that the campaign financing laws haven’t been updated since "the Watergate era" (although why this fact is important is left out).

He then goes on to claim that "’soft money’ affords them (the lobbyists) access to the political system and amplifies their voices above the voices of ordinary Americans." Now, I don’t know about you, but I can’t go to Washington D.C. every time the congress is about to do something stupid. For one, it would be an everyday trip and two, they probably wouldn’t listen to me anyway (no credentials, no education beyond guberment skol, just "some guy").

But there are many citizens like myself who donate to organizations that not only share our views, they can send someone to D.C. every time the government is about to do something stupid. These, mostly citizen- sponsored organizations are who Mr. Strickland is calling "lobbyists" and, in most cases, the voices they amplify are the voices of ordinary Americans.

Mr. Strickland next alludes to some financial gain that Enron might have incurred should this or that have happened. He fails to say, however, if other corporations might have reaped similar gains under the same proposed rules whether they had contributed to the politicians or not. I guess the rules he talks about were never adopted anyway, so what’s the big deal?

Besides, apparently Enron got nothing of any kind from anyone in the government. The "astounding ," according to Mr. Strickland, amounts paid out by Enron got them absolutely zip. He also neglects to mention that none of Enron’s contributions to the politicians would have been illegal under the proposed new law. If this is his "case for campaign finance reform," it’s a really bad one.

He rambles on, crowing a little about undercutting the rules of the House, then complains that others may try to follow the rules in the future. Then he hits the nail right on the head. He says " ..we are closer than we have ever been to changing the way influence is bought and sold in Washington."

And that is exactly right, none of the influence buying and selling will go away, only who’s doing the buying and selling will change. Under current law I get to have a little bit of a say. Not much, but a little bit.

Under McCain-Feingold, I get put in jail if I advocate an issue within 60 days of a federal election. Good law, huh?

I could go on forever, but suffice it to say that in my opinion campaign finance reform in the style of the McCain-Feingold bill is a bad deal for us "ordinary Americans". It only helps incumbent politicians.

Keith Brooks

Ironton