In an editorial today, the Cape Girardeau Southeast Missourian favors the voter photo identification and campaign finance reform bills recently passed by the state legislature.
While I don't have any big complaints about the photo voter ID bill, except for the vultures who are looking to cash in on the photo requirement, the reasoning used by the Cape Girardeau paper to support the campaign finance measure is flawed, to say the least:
"Opponents of the bill claim the legislation defies the will of the state's voters, who in 1994 voted to limit political contributions -- an action later thrown out by the courts. The then-Democrat-controlled legislature adopted higher limits.
"What the opponents fail to mention is that none of the voters in 1994 who said they wanted to cap campaign contributions had any inkling that political operatives would quickly find a way to siphon huge sums of money to their favorite candidates by using the sham of the political committees in both parties -- in effect an end run around the caps."
So why didn't they simply pass laws closing those loopholes? Instead, their solution was to remove the caps, and yes, the voters wanted the contribution caps and still want them. Requiring immediate disclosure of who donates how much money to whom is going to make little difference when that money is already being used to launch round after round of television ads and discourage not only opposition from the other party, but also opposition from within the candidate's party.