To the editor:

The McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan Incumbent Protection Act appears to be on the fast track and have some support among readers of your editorial page. The prime objective appears to be the elimination of the influence of money in “national” elections.

While this appears to be noble in intent (although it would probably be more noble if everyone who voted “aye” also announced an intent not to seek re-election), it does not appear to be within the powers granted Congress in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Never mind; that does not appear to have been a barrier to federal legislation since at least 1862.

The other problem is that it regulates speech. Article I of the amendments does not say, “Freedom of speech and the press is a good thing but may be regulated for the public welfare, convenience and necessity.” It begins, “Congress shall make no law” That is no law.

Progressivism posits that the government can perfect the process, just one more tweaking of the system, just one more reform. Don’t worry about a document that has been gathering dust since 1791. It is 10 suggestions that are OK, but don’t address today’s problems. And the people need to be protected.

But think about this: The people are not stupid or corrupt. They may be led at times by demagogues. But they will react. In 1998, Jesse Ventura took the Minnesota governorship because the people were unhappy with the Democrat Farmer Labor Party. Dan Glickman was elected to Congress because Garner Shriver stayed too long and defeated because he stayed too long. It had to do with the restlessness of the electorate, not the infusion of money.

Study history; don’t jerk your knees. The Republic will survive if the people occasionally replace the governmentand if the government will return to its proper functions.

Earl L. Haehl

Lawrence