Abortion and Campaign Finance Stasis

                In modern arguments perpetrated by laypersons in the general public, the idea of stasis seems to be all but lost during an active argument. However, it seems that people arrive at stasis in some aspects at different times, wholly without realizing what has happened. The authors of Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students used the issue of abortion to illustrate this element of rhetoric.

                In Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students, the authors tell us that stasis can only be achieved if the persons on both sides of an argument can agree on the issue that is being debated. This difference in opinion of the issue that is at stake often perpetrates this argument, as each side continues to push talking points that are wholly un-related to each other. While there is much disagreement, I do believe that people in the abortion debate can agree on some issues:

1.       Murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong.

2.       It is an inalienable human right to be in control of one’s body.

Although many on both sides of the abortion debate will reluctantly admit that they agree with these two issues independent of the current debate, the context of how each issue of the debate applies to the situation. Herein lies the difficulty of achieving stasis in this societal debate; each side of the argument will agree with one issue and not the other:

1.       Murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong. However, independent of murdering an unborn child that we argue is an independent form of human life, it is an inalienable right to be in control of one’s body.

2.       It is an inalienable human right to be in control of one’s body. However, independent of taking away one’s inalienable human right to control one’s own body and remove a portion of one’s own body not considered to be an independent form of human life; murder of a vulnerable person, in our modern American culture, is morally wrong.

An issue that has seen some form of stasis has taken place in the state of Maine. In Maine, the issue of campaign finance reform was a concern for a majority of the voters. It was argued that private political interest money made the political process inaccessible for many of the people of Maine, who’s constitutional and democratic form of government, as it was established, was supposed to allow for the freedom to run for political office to the citizenry.

In 1996, the voters of Maine, by way of voter initiative, passed that Maine Clean Elections Act (MECA). The MECA establishes a voluntary program by which candidates that run for the office of Governor, State Senate, or State House of Representatives can be certified as “Participating Candidates” and participate in the political process. Candidates that are certified as “Participating Candidates” cannot fundraise and must participate in the process that is enumerated in the MECA. Candidates that participate may obtain seed money to start a campaign, however, that amount is limited. The candidates must then obtain a number of contributions to fund their campaign not to exceed $5 per registered voter.

The MECA does not in any way prohibit candidates from running for political office by way of what can be considered to be “traditional” campaign contributions, however, those candidates cannot qualify for a “Participating Candidate” endorsement under the MECA. It is by this way that the people of Maine can then choose to vote for a “Clean Elections Candidate” or a “Non-Participating Candidate”. I believe, that through this, the voters of Maine have achieved, at least partially, a form a stasis that will allow for the voters to choose.