A Washington, DC press photographer vents about the political wranglings in our Nation's Capital.
Money and the purchasing of influence
Published on November 12, 2007 By joe-pro-photographer In Politics
So today, after I wrote my initial thoughts on this subject, John McCain came out and called for an end to the third party, 501-C-4 advertisements supporting his campaing in South Carolina. For those of you not up on this subject, Rick Reed, who helped produce the famous Swift Boat ads during the doomed Kerry campaign, has been running spots supportive of McCain in South Carolina. Today, McCain denounced these advertisements. As I wrote earlier, I couldn't believe he would support the running of such ads. It is opposite what he believes, and what he tried to regulate, in the McCain/ Feingold Campaign Reform Legislation.

Some have written that this legislation should be ignored because it is out of date and doesn't work. I can only say this: I cover Washington politics. I am really upset by how money and donations steer legislation. By steer, I mean dictate. I've seen special interest groups sit in Congressional offices and write what would become proposed legislation. Imagine that -- special interests, groups looking out only for profit and their business bottom line -- dictating legislation to a member of Congress. No matter which side of the political spectrum you are, that should make your hair stand on end. By the way, both parties are guilty.

I sat in one meeting where a very pominent Republican Senator asked, "what exactly is Transfat and why should it be regulated." The response -- offered by a food manufacturer -- was "Transfat is shortening." "Oh," replied the member, "well I use that at home." "Exactly, so why regulate it?" was the next logical response.

How the hell does this all relate to McCain and 501-C-4 advertisements? McCain, at least, is one member I thought tried to follow his own moral compass. I was horrified that in this case it looked like that moral compass pointed South. However, in the end, he and I are on the same page. Thank God, I was afraid for a moment I might become even more jaded.

Comments
on Nov 12, 2007

Bill Maher is not my favorite but I always thought it was hilarious when he said that the politicians should wear patches on their suits of their "sponsors" just like a race car driver does.  Then we could take everything that comes out of their mouth knowing that it was "influenced" by those sponsors. 

Your job sounds cool.  Are you a free-lance photographer or do you work just for a certain publication? 

on Nov 12, 2007
McCain/Feingold is a very bad piece of legislation, otherwise known as the Incumbent Senator & Congressman Relief Act of 2002, and may prove to be an unconstitutional abridgement of political speech.

That said, McCain is simply following a particular political strategy, just like all politicians, in denouncing the ads. He's no more a saint than any other Senator & if he were still down at the bottom of the polls you wouldn't have heard a peep from him. He's my Senator, BTW, and for the most part I admire him.
on Nov 13, 2007

That said, McCain is simply following a particular political strategy, just like all politicians, in denouncing the ads. He's no more a saint than any other Senator & if he were still down at the bottom of the polls you wouldn't have heard a peep from him.

A rather cynical view of politicians.  And one that I unfortunately share.

on Nov 13, 2007
NEW RULES!
Freelance -- don't really want to say more publically than that.
on Nov 13, 2007
I don't argue with either of you. I think some sort of reform is needed, and McCain/Feingold is all that's ever been passed. However you feel about the law itself, at least it's an attempt.
on Nov 13, 2007
A piss poor attempt often does more damage than not trying at all. And McCain Feingold was a piss poor attempt.
on Nov 13, 2007

A piss poor attempt often does more damage than not trying at all. And McCain Feingold was a piss poor attempt.

A bad law is worse than no law. For it will harm others that would not otherwise be harmed, and not curtail the activity it was meant to restrict.

on Nov 13, 2007
Again, I don't argue. I don't know why, but I'm reminded of early digital cameras and the crappy pictures they took. To this day, people insist that film is better than digital. People who aren't under deadline and uploading photos to be published in 10 minutes in China. My point: those cameras could have skuttled the future of photography. Or did they launch it?
on Nov 13, 2007

My point: those cameras could have skuttled the future of photography. Or did they launch it?

But the early cameras did not restrict anyone, they enabled some.  But a bad law restricts some, and enables no one.  So your analogy is not applicable.

on Nov 14, 2007
Geeze, I hate to sound like a snot. But, many who shot with those cameras were very restricted with what they could do. But they were a start. I'm talking about starts, here. Places to launch from -- and that is why the analogy works, at least in my mind.

'course, I'm ADD.
on Nov 14, 2007

Geeze, I hate to sound like a snot

No, not a snot, but one who has a firm conviction.  And I respect that even if I disagree with your view point.  I will just agree to disagree.

on Nov 14, 2007
I meant a snotty photographer, they are the worse. ! and thanks for writing, M