The political donation scandal surrounding Liu Tai-ying (
Let us take a look at a campaign finance reform law recently passed in the US. In October, the US Senate passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, introduced in the House by Representatives Martin Meehan (Democrat) and Christopher Shays (Republican), by a vote of 60-40.
The Bush-Gore race in the US presidential election more than two years ago set the stage for a campaign finance reform law, as huge campaign donations flowed into the bank accounts of the two national parties, influencing the election. At the same time, the American people felt their opinions received little attention in comparison to corporations, trade unions and wealthy individuals.
As a result, some Congressmen, such as Senators John McCain (Republican) and Russell Feingold (Democrat), as well as Meehan and Shays, took the lead in calling for limitations on "soft money," hoping to create a clean electoral environment and return government to the people. Soft money funds are donated to political parties and campaign committees in both houses of Congress.
On the pretext of party building, the parties and committees then spend the funds on propaganda and campaign-related activities in federal elections. For example, political parties often spend these funds on campaign ads that display the photographs of their candidates.
The ads, however, refrain from using catchwords like "vote" or "elect" in order to avoid criticism for illegal use of donations. Such illegal practices of spending campaign contributions in connection with federal elections render the campaign law, which sets the limits on campaign contributions, almost obsolete.
To prevent political parties from engaging in schemes to circumvent the law, both houses of Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The act is deemed a breakthrough in campaign finance reform following the amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act in response to the Watergate scandal more than twenty years ago. It prohibits the raising and spending of "soft money" in federal elections, placing restrictions on corporations, non-profit organizations and trade unions to run campaign ads prior to an election.
On the other hand, the new law raises the maximum amount for individual contributions to political parties (including national, state, local committees and candidates). As a result, the mutually beneficial terms between political parties (and their candidates) and corporations, non-profit organizations, trade unions and wealthy donors will begin to weaken to some extent. It reduces the risk of the former being used by the latter as a condition for receiving huge contributions. The latter will not need to worry about spending too much money due to the former constantly asking for more contributions.
As for our country, democracy is not yet fully on the right track and the problem of "white gold" (political contributions from businesses) has been so tainted that it must no longer be ignored. The US campaign finance reform law will hopefully give our people some inspiration. Let us further ask our party leaders and the Legislative Yuan to forsake disputes and controversies that serve no purpose to clarifying the rules of democracy, putting an end to the negative effects of political contributions on the development of democracy.
Huang Kwei-bo is an assistant professor in the department of diplomacy at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Grace Shaw
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers