The Chance for Reform is Now

The last time I felt this way about a presidential campaign was in 1992. It was my senior year in college, and Clinton was campaigning. For those of you who grew up with President Clinton, it may be hard to imagine that candidate Clinton inspired feelings of promise. The morning after the election, people woke up with a sense of what could be. As cheesy as it sounds, if you dig up the newspapers from that day, you will find many references to this feeling of optimism. Not many people wake up feeling that way about Clinton anymore.

Eight years later, pessimism and apathy were sinking in as both political parties had decided on their favorite sons, and the race seemed half over months before the election. Then came Arizona Sen. John S. McCain's surprise victory in New Hampshire. Most amazingly, this self-styled reformer heralds campaign finance reform as a centerpiece of his platform. In 1992, mentioning campaign finance reform as a real possibility got predictable laughs. Who could amass enough money to win the presidency by biting the hand that feeds them? How would you expect members of Congress to endorse you when you're campaigning to take away the very thing that got them there? And yet campaign finance reform is good for ordinary citizens, and by promoting it McCain--and to a lesser extent Bill Bradley--is bringing the debate to the people.

Why is campaign finance reform so important? One estimate of its importance is in the reaction of its enemies. Many single-issue zealots are campaigning against McCain, a senator who has almost always voted their way. They are rightly afraid that their disproportionate influence on policy will be lost if soft money--a euphemism for unlimited monetary contributions to political parties--is banned. The prospect of true reform is so scary to the establishment that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) stopped blocking Clinton's judicial nominees just to get a strident anti-reformer appointed to the Federal Election Commission, the body that would enforce any new campaign finance laws.

You may agree or disagree with McCain or Bradley on other social or fiscal issues. But campaign finance reform lays the groundwork for all other reforms. Democrat or Republican, a president who won't fight to stop the unlimited flow of soft money--$750 million projected to be spent on this year's election cycle alone--also won't be able to pass common sense reforms that the majority of the country wants. Is it really a coincidence that the only major reforms we have seen in the Clinton presidency addressed immigration and welfare? While welfare recipients and immigrants are not known for their campaign contributions, health care, gun control, education and corporate and military pork all have very well-financed special interest groups with a keen desire to maintain the status quo.

What makes this election exciting is that despite the odds, a politician like McCain has a chance in this country. In Japan, where I emigrated from years ago, politics is decided by the establishment elites in nice restaurants and country clubs. People often just accept what the elites decide because they're too busy with their own lives. A lot of that happens here, too; but every once in a while Americans get off their couch. The people of New Hampshire expected the politicians to come into their town halls and school gymnasiums, answer their questions and listen to their concerns. How many countries require this of candidates for the highest executive office of their land?

All this, and still a recent poll said that more people knew who won the Super Bowl than who won the New Hampshire primary. My mother used to tell me that she was the invisible voter. She would sit out of most elections because the choices were not that different. But when the choices actually mattered, like if Gandhi were running against Hitler, she would vote and have her presence felt. But an invisible voter is really no voter at all. The reason politicians usually don't court the youth vote is because they have a very low turnout. Better to cater to the retirees, the religious conservatives, the unions, who are hard to please but are guaranteed voters. And you wonder why special interests have taken over Washington.

Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice-President Al Gore '69 are not going to reform a system to which they are so indebted. If there ever was a primary season that mattered, this is it. If you don't vote now, you'll find yourself writing an article like this one in 2008, mourning what could have been.

Yumio Saneyoshi is an economics tutor in Winthrop House.