Don't Expect Campaign Finance Reform "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." -Milan Kundera With the exception of the passage of the 1996 Gift Ban Act, campaign finance reform over the past few years has consisted of at best legislative paralysis and at worst legislative decline. Reform bills died in 1992, 1993, and 1994 when a conference committee could not reconcile differences between the House and Senate's versions. In 1996, the only campaign finance "reform" bill of note was one sponsored by William "Bill" Thomas (R-CA), which sought to increase spending limits while providing for full disclosure, the Conservative panacaea for corrupt campaigns. These bills were relatively obscure, however, and in election years were subsumed by the general anti-establishment spirit of 1992 and 1994 and the complacency of 1996. As even the most casual observer of politics will note, however, the 1996 elections are generally regarded as the most corrupt since Watergate. Both parties indulged in egregious abuses of the existing laws, in particular using "soft money" (donations to an individual party which are technically unlimited under current campaign finance reform law) to finance presidential campaign advertising after candidates were given Federal money, which is technically illegal. In addition to being illegal under existing law, such donations go directly against the spirit of rules designed to limit the amount of money and therefore influence an individual may exert through gifts. While conservatives and even some progressive groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union claim that soft money bans are unconstitutional in that they interfere with a person's political speech, the abuses of 1996 make it clear that these concerns are negligible when (as the Supreme Court held in Buckley v. Valeo) they are weighed against the possibility of creating "corruption or the appearance of corruption." The latter most certainly was the case this past year, and continues to be. What got the American public's attention were the White House coffees, nights in the Lincoln Bedroom and other quid pro quos enjoyed by large Democratic Party donors, as well as the party's ties to overseas donors such as the Lippo Corporation. These violations, which Republicans memorably and exaggeratedly claimed were part of a Chinese conspiracy to gain power in Washington, led to this summer's Thompson hearings, which uncovered much less than the "plot" which Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) claimed they would reveal. At the same time, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) promulgated a sweeping reform bill that would close the soft money loophole in election law. Seizing upon this attention, Common Cause and Campaign for America inaugurated "Project Independence," an awareness-raising highly symbolic push for signatures in support of the McCain-Feingold Bill and its House counterpart, the Shays-Meehan Bill. For the moment the issue, when phrased as political corruption and conspiracy, had captured as much attention as could reasonably expected. As is often the case, due to the general inertia that acts upon hotly debated bills as well as finger-pointing, the bill has not been brought to the floor for a vote, although Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) scheduled a vote on the legislation in March. Although this solution appears to be a victory for the Democrats (who comprise 45 of the 49 senators who have publicly endorsed the bill), in actuality the postponement to a time when the 1998 elections are more important than those of 1996 will only weaken the bill. Although the issue has made frequent appearances in the news, they for the most part comprise individual stories, such as a possible link between tribal casino privileges and donations, rather than a single problem beyond the system itself. These stories have also tended to present the Democratic Party as the more corrupt party, particularly given Attorney General Janet Reno's refusal to appoint an independent counsel to investigate campagin finance reform abuses and President Clinton's alleged sale of plots in Arlington National Cemetery. Lost in these attention-grabbing interest stories is the fact that the Republican Party benefits even more from the current system than the Democrats, raising nearly twice as much money from PACs and three times the soft money of Democrats. This does not exculpate the Democrats, but does suggest that the problem lies with the current system in which large contributions dominate. The underlying theme of the 1996 elections being the results of a structural problems with the system, rather than an aberrant problem unto themselves, has received little press. The idea that it is the system that must be changed, rather than (as conservatives and others who argue for already mandatory full disclosure of large contributions) the way in laws are enforced, is crucial to any serious reform. Equally critical is the reality that, as critics of reform claim, money is political speech, though one in which quantity is the only attribute that mattters: whoever gains the loudest voice (by donating the most money) is the one who is heard. In addition, in an overwhelming majority of cases, the candidate with the most money wins elections. Both parties abused the system during the last election, and if the current laws are not changed, they will do so again. While the Democrats gained more notoriety for their abuses of the system, the Republicans had a substantial edge in soft money fundraising, hence the overwhelming Republican desire to keep the status quo in place. When the McCain-Feingold Bill will be voted upon in March, too late for 1997 to have any effect, too early to be a key issue in the 1998 campaign, it will lose most of its appeal and apparent timeliness. This is deceptive however; just as great quantities of soft money were used to obscure the true issues in 1996, the placement of the vote further diminishes them. This is not accidental, for any sort of campaign finance reform to be successful, Americans must realize that the problems of 1996 were systematic and not specific. Time and forgetfulness will exacerbate these problems, not alleviate them. |
Home | Archives | L-Word by Email | About The L-Word | Staff | Feedback