A New Era for Campaign Finance Reform?

"Capitol Hill Fundraising Cycle Has No End" is the title of a January 28, 2001 article in the Washington Post. The cost of running a congressional and presidential campaign is now so high that law makers have to begin to solicit funds for the 108th Congress (2003-2004) even before they are actually sworn into the 107th! The article reported that, "While the general public braved the chill and rain last weekend to watch President Bush's inaugural parade, 400 GOP donors were enjoying the festivities along Pennsylvania Avenue from a cozier venue: at a reception in the French steakhouse Les Halles sponsored by Republican Conference Chairman J.C. Watts (R-OK).

The battle is brewing over campaign finance reform. As promised during his campaign for the Presidency, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has introduced a Campaign Finance Reform bill. Senators Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) have joined him as primary sponsors. The bill has two major provisions: It would ban soft money (unlimited corporate, union and individual contributions to political parties). It also would end corporate and union financing of independent groups' TV and radio "issue ads" discussing candidates shortly before elections and would require the disclosure of large individual contributions for such ads.

Like soft money, issue ads have become a means of skirting prohibitions in federal campaign law, and unless such ads are regulated, banned soft money simply could be rechannelled into these electioneering communications.

While this bill is similar to an earlier McCain?Feingold proposal (and the Shays?Meehan bill that passed the House in 1998 and 1999), it emerges in a new political environment that provides a real chance for enactment. For more than two years, the majority supporting reform in the House and Senate has run into a brick wall of Senate filibusters. However, following McCain's demonstration of the popular appeal of campaign reform in last year's Republican presidential primaries and the Democrats' gain of four seats in the recent election, the political landscape has shifted.

The Soft Money Scourge

In 1974, when Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) reaffirming the longstanding prohibition on corporate and union contributions and limiting those from individuals and political committees, no one had ever heard of unlimited party soft money. Now, national party soft money comprises more than a third of all large ($1,000+) contributions for federal elections. And it comes in $10,000?, $100,000?, even $500,000?chunks to support narrow special interest agendas. Soft money contributions have been increasing at a faster rate than other political spending, almost doubling from $262 million in the 1996 election cycle to $487 million in the 2000 cycle (with the final figures not yet complete). Both parties are equally addicted: The Republicans took in $244 million in this cycle while the Democrats received $243 million.

What does soft money, and the political access and influence it brings, mean for the average person? It means that legislation to expand patient protections to more than 160 million Americans in employer health plans and to hold HMOs legally accountable for denying necessary care never comes out of a House?Senate conference committee. It means that casinos get a $316 million tax cut and their lobbyists persuade lawmakers to overturn environmental constraints designed to protect wetlands and water quality. It means that senior citizens must wait longer for decent prescription drug benefits under Medicare, and that sick former asbestos workers injured on the job have to worry that they and their families never will have the chance to make their claims in court. And the list goes on.

"Issue" Ads

The new bill's provisions on independent groups' TV and radio issue ads also would help to curb evasions of federal campaign finance law. In 1976, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo, attempted to draw a line between contributions for political campaigns that can be regulated to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, and the financing of pure issue discussion, which has greater protection under the First Amendment's freedoms of speech and association. In a footnote, the Court suggested the former could be defined by "magic words" such as "vote for" and "vote against." Understandably, the Supreme Court did not anticipate the rise of clever political consultants who write phony "issue ads" for independent groups to generate support for a candidate (or opposition to an opponent) without using so?called "magic words" ?? and thus are not subject to legal contribution limits. A new study by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice even shows that the candidates themselves usually don't use words like "vote for" or "vote against" in their own ads.

Tens of millions of dollars were spent on phony issue ads in the last election by a variety of groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL?CIO, Planned Parenthood, the Sierra Club and the corporate?funded Citizens for Better Medicare.

Sensitive to the constitutional issues involved, the McCain?Feingold?Cochran bill regulates only radio and TV ads clearly referring to candidates and run 60 days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. It does not regulate any newspaper ad or leaflet, voter guide, direct mail piece or Internet communication. For?profit corporations and unions are prohibited from financing phony TV and radio "issue" ads supporting candidates, just as they have been prohibited from specifically endorsing or opposing candidates since 1907 and 1947 respectively. On the other hand, under the bill, non?profit groups such as the National Right to Life Committee or the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League could spend as much money as they want as long as they don't take corporate or union money. They would be obliged to disclose only large ($1,000 and over) individual contributions for their ads. They would not be required to disclose their membership lists or all of their financial supporters.

Similar narrowly focused language has been endorsed by a broad range of experts including 126 constitutional scholars and the corporate?led Committee for Economic Development.

Other provisions of the McCain?Feingold?Cochran bill require more timely disclosure of independent spending; strengthen current law to make it clear that it is unlawful to raise campaign contributions on federal property; definitively prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to federal, state or local elections; and codify current regulations and court rulings requiring labor unions to annually notify non?union employees that they are entitled to have their fees for union representation reduced by an amount equal to the portion used for political campaigns and lobbying. The bill also bars federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use. All these positive provisions strengthen the bill.

Opposition Likely

Even without a new filibuster, reformers still must overcome legislative maneuvers by politicians resisting change. Currently, opponents are trying to delay consideration of the bill for months on the pretext that it is more important to consider President George W. Bush's legislative agenda first. It is precisely because the president's agenda deals with so many issues that are influenced by our current campaign finance system ?? Social Security and Medicare reform, tax cuts, defense spending, education aid ?? that we need to take up the McCain?Feingold?Cochran bill as soon as possible, certainly no later than March.

Possible Amendments

When the bill gets to the Senate floor, opponents also are expected to offer numerous amendments designed to drive supporters away from the bill. These have been referred to as "poison pills". Campaign Finance Reform supporters are of various oppinions regarding these possible amendments because they may offer a plausible pretext for a presidential veto. The most important of these will be a proposal to triple the current legal limit on individual contributions to candidates from $1,000 per election to $3,000. Other elements of this proposal, embodied in a bill introduced last year by Sen. Chuck Hagel (R?Neb.), include increasing the limit on political action contributions from $5,000 to $7,500 and tripling the annual aggregate individual contribution cap from $25,000 to $75,000.

Supporters of these individual "hard money" increases assert that the rise in the cost of living since the adoption of the federal campaign finance law in 1974 is sufficient to justify the proposed hikes. Yet this is far from apparent. Significantly, the current Supreme Court has reiterated that the current $1,000 limit, erected to prevent corruption, does not hinder free speech unless it prevents candidates generally from raising enough money to run effective campaigns. Speaking for the Court in last year's Nixon v. Shrink Missouri case, Justice David Souter emphasized, "The dictates of the First Amendment are not mere functions of the Consumer Price Index."

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., argues that if the individual limit were raised to $3,000, large contributions could reasonably be expected to rise to approximately 55 percent of all House winners' and 64 percent of all Senate winners' individual contributions. Would this have an impact on congressional consideration of abolishing the tax on large estates or on the kind of tax cut that it may enact? Would the receipt of "bundles" of $1,000 contributions from employees of a corporation or lobbying firm influence an official's vote or decision concerning that special interest? Of course it would. The answers are obvious and detrimental to our democracy.

Those who wish to increase the contribution limit argue that candidates must spend so much time raising money that they don't have time to do their work. The solution to this, Public Citizen argues, is to expand the path of public financing (including matching of small contributions) that already exists for presidential elections. This has recently been enacted by Arizona, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont for elections of state candidates.

Another proposal that may be raised as a rationale for an eventual presidential veto of campaign finance reform but is unlikely to be adopted (it was decisively defeated in the House in 1998) is so?called "paycheck protection." This would require each worker to individually and annually authorize that portion of union dues or fees designated for political spending.

Opponents of "paycheck protection" describe it as a way to poison the McCain? Feingold?Cochran bill for reformist Democrats, causing them to abandon the bill because it singles out labor ?? one of their most important constituencies. Thought to be discriminatory to impose "paycheck protection" only on union members and not on members of other groups that talk to their members or shareholders about elections such as the National Rifle Association, National Right To Life Committee or many corporations;

It is contrary to the American tradition of voluntary association for "big brother government" to require individual members of groups to give advance approval of what the group will spend to discuss elections with its membership. These are decisions of the group, which every member has the choice to join or leave.

The bill deals with contributions, not with what groups say to their own members about elections. The provisions banning soft money and regulating phony issue ads apply equally to corporations and unions.

Conclusion

If ever we need campaign-finance reform, it is now. Once again, we have a bill with provisions that would help close existing loopholes and break the grip that special interests have on lawmakers. If the public, which overwhelmingly condemns our corrupt campaign finance system, makes itself heard, this country will take a historical step towards fulfilling its democratic promise.

Suggested action:

It is expected that both the House and the Senate will deal with Campaign Finance Reform very quickly. Perhaps even before the end of March. This is the time to get your phone calls and letters into your elected officials. If you have had enough of all of the media ads for and against candidates running for office, this is the time to act. The current system has advantages and disadvantages for both Democrats and Republicans. We need a system that has advantages for the people, particularly for those individual and independent citizens who may want to run for office themselves.

Write:

The Honorable _______ The Honorable________
U.S. Senator U.S. House
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Senator_____, Dear Representative_____ ,

Call: Congress Switchboard 202-224-3121

General Assembly

The 1983 General Assembly adopted a policy statement and background paper on "Reformed Faith and Politics." It states: "Politics on every level is obviously self-interested people pursuing their own advantage through the use of government. However, politics, particularly where exercised through democratic procedures, also requires a vision of the public good to be served. The politician must represent himself or herself as expressing the best interests of those represented. Too narrow a pursuit of self-interest exposes the politician to criticism and the profession to a reputation that cheapens the meaning of politics. Even self-interest must be disguised under promises to the civic good. Politics is a mixture of serving self and serving the public. People try to be ethical as well as political, although they are not perfect in either attempt. In politics and ethics the search for the public good and self-interest leads to uneasy compromises.

"Reformed Christians understand this political ambiguity as rooted in our human nature, We are inevitably sinful in our political actions. ...The best hopes for our political life reside in knowing our sin as well as the sin of others and acting accordingly to minimize sin's effects" (minutes, p.766)

The 1984 General Assembly adopted "Resolution on Money in Politics: The Limits of Influence." It calls for reforms that: (1) enact limits on campaign contributions to candidates for all elective offices; (2) enact public funding measures that would lessen dependence on funds provided by PACs; (3) provide for increased disclosures of political contributions by all bodies related to or sponsoring PACs; (4) provide ethical and legal guidance to office-holders regarding potential conflicts of interest between the acceptance of funds and action on legislative proposals (minutes, p. 354)