In the excerpt from “The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform”, John Samples argues that the passing of the McCain-Feingold Act is no means for celebration. Samples argues that money and Freedom of Speech, as well as other rights enunciated in the Constitution, are intertwined. Samples begins by examining the purposes of the McCain-Feingold Act. Although the law itself explains little about its purposes and the “special interest” influences it tried to reduce, supporters of the Act expected the law to accomplish many purposes. These purposes include curbing special interests, such as stopping the use of soft money as a means of buying influence, ending the appearance of corruption, and reducing some kinds of political advertising, such as issue ads, which target particular candidates in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election. Samples continues to describe the purposes as chronicled by its supporters. These purposes include promoting democracy, increasing political equality, regaining control of campaign finance, and realizing the public interest. The other purposes include restoring trust in government, increasing electoral competition, improving political discourse, …show more content…
Samples proceeds to examine the connections between political visions and campaign finance. The Progressive vision of politics seeks to restrict and reform campaign finance and believes that economic interests of the elites corrupt politics, and have driven the debate about campaign finance. Progressives believe that government is the victim of the private interests of elites and the solution to their dangerous distinctiveness. Meanwhile, Madisonians believe that government is the problem, and that particular interests, interests of the minority have a right to be heard in the national debate regarding campaign