Bill doesn’t censor anybody’s speech

Re: “McCain-Feingold was a mistake,” Editorial, Sept. 1

Your Sept. 1 editorial simply gets it wrong. Our bill, which was upheld by the Supreme Court against a First Amendment challenge in 2003, doesn’t ban or censor any speech. It simply requires groups that run campaign ads to follow the same rules that govern candidates and parties.

During the run-up to an election, groups like the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce are free to run any ad they wish. They just need to pay for them through their political action committees.

What McCain-Feingold did was prevent corporations, unions and organizations from using unlimited “soft money” to run political ads. Transparency and disclosure of election spending are important but they’re not enough. We need to address the distorting impact on the legislative process of that unlimited and unregulated money.

The Federal Election Commission rule change that certain advocacy groups and the Republican FEC commissioners supported would have opened a huge new loophole in the law. The FEC’s decision not to proceed was the right one. It’s job is to enforce election laws rather than undermine the work of Congress.

Citizens absolutely have the right to hold their elected officials accountable in advance of an election. McCain-Feingold helps ensure that their voices are not drowned out by ads paid for by soft money from special interests.

Editor’s Note: Readers are encouraged to consult the law, as modified by McCain-Feingold, including USC 434 (f)(3), which defines what an electioneering communication is, and 441b(c), which bars them from being paid for using corporate or labor funds, thus effectively censoring those forms of political speech for 30 days prior to a primary election and 60 days prior to a general election.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
United States Senate

D.C volunteer ‘shadow’ representatives not fakes

Re: “How The Examiner sees the D.C. Council races,” Editorial, Sept. 7

I take issue with your “fake job” dismissal of the offices of “shadow” U.S. senator and representative. These are unpaid, volunteers who work to bring voting representation to all District citizens. Does the lack of a paycheck make a job “fake”?

Your readers should know that The Washington Examiner reporter who interviewed me was from suburban Virginia and knew almost nothing about the District’s disenfranchisement from the national legislature.

When I stated that I supported a commuter tax, she became almost indignant at the idea that suburbanites would have to pay their share for the use of the District’s roads and emergency services.

She even suggested that I wouldn’t get many votes in Virginia with that position. Talk about not getting it!

Before your paper degrades volunteer positions working to bring representation to over a half-million people, perhaps The Examiner should actually have some reporters who know a little more about the District.

Mike Panetta
Washington

Who is responsible for bloodshed in Lebanon?

Re: “U.S. meddling in Mideast is root of Muslim hatred,” From Readers, Sept. 4

President Bush recently mentioned that we have to eradicate the root cause of terrorism, especially the Hezbollah fighters who abducted two Israeli soldiers from the Israeli/South Lebanese border.

Their abduction caused the subsequent attack on Lebanon.

As a result of a massive action to release them by the Israeli Defense Force, more than a hundred IDF soldiers died and several hundred IDF and Hezbollah soldiers were wounded.

Millions of dollars of Israeli property was damaged, as well as billions of dollars of Lebanese infrastructure.

Thousands of civilians lost their lives, but unfortunately those two Israeli soldiers could not be freed.

Who will take responsibility for the innocent lives lost inside Lebanon and Israel?

Who should pay the price for this misadventure?

Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister who ordered the attack on Lebanon — or Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah chief who ordered the abduction?

Recently, Nasrallah said that if he knew that those abductions would have caused such a massive bombardment, he never would have ordered them. But we did not hear any such confession from Olmert. What is his reaction after Nasrallah’s comment?

What is the root cause of terrorism in the Middle East? The answer will be different depending upon whom we ask this question.

Mohiuddin Anwar
Arlington