Let me make an analogy between campaign finance
restrictions, and ballot access restrictions.

In the 19th century, it was unthinkable that the
government could ever prevent anyone from running for
public office.  The government didn't have the power
to prevent anyone from seeking votes from the public,
since the government didn't print the ballots.  Then
we have the Australian ballot reform, hailed by all
people of good will.  But now the government did
suddenly have the power to keep people off the ballot,
and even to prevent write-ins.  This power was
little-used at first.

Today, it is considered respectable for one of our
major parties, the Democratic Party, to use its power
to prevent voters from voting for Ralph Nader.  Today
the newspapers reported that Butler County, Ohio,
elections officials rejected 96% of the signatures
submitted by Nader in that county.  In at least three
states where elections officials have already said
Nader got enough signatures, the elections officials
have been sued to overturn their decisions.  People
who signed petitions for Nader are being telephoned,
to persuade them to remove their names.  Circulators
for Nader are having their doorbells rung by strangers
who warn them that they may go to jail if they break
any election laws.

Elected officials hate the uncertainty of elections. 
Over the years, they have shaped the ballot access
laws, and (much more recently) the campaign finance
laws, to make it very unlikely that the public will
ever again defeat a substantial proportion of
congressmembers and state officials running for
re-election.  Back in the 19th century, sometimes as
many as one-third of all US House members would be
defeated for re-election.  In the 1850's, and the
1890's, there were instances when new parties arose,
and within months of their formation, won majority
control of a state legislature.  That last happened in
the 20th century in Wisconsin in 1934, when the
Wisconsin Progressive Party was formed and in that
same year ended up as the biggest party in that
state's legislature.

Very few people who pay attention to election law seem
bothered by the ballot access restrictions, nor by the
inability of minor parties to participate in debates,
nor by public campaign subsidies that go only to the
two major parties.  The election law community, and
the major media, are so accustomed to laws that stack
the deck against minor parties and independent
candidates that there is no outrage.

Some posters on this list don't even acknowledge that
there are more than two parties.  They say "the
parties" when they mean "the two major parties".

Soon, there will be even more campaign finance
restrictions.  This month's decision by the 2nd
circuit in Landall v Sorrell, that state governments
may restrict expenditures as well as contributions,
even when there is no public financing, is a sign. 
State governments will eventually pass laws similar to
McCain-Feingold.  Since it costs big money to overcome
severe ballot access barriers, the combination of
state McCain-Feingold laws plus the ballot access
barriers will end any meaningful competition to the
major parties and incumbent office-holders.  The
nation's elections will become less and less
meaningful.  The elites will rule; the public will be
reduced to choosing between two different sets of
elites, nothing more.  And it was all supposed to be
for the greater good.

President Bush can get away with his recent statements
about 527's, because the public has already been told
that the US Supreme Court thinks anything goes, when
it comes to clamping down on campaign speech.  The
American public is remarkably respectful of the
Supreme Court.  The perception is out there that the
U.S. Supreme Court says that it's more important to
stop corruption than to allow unrestricted campaign
speech.  The public accepts this idea.  There is no
force remaining to stop the slide.




		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail