SOYOUWANNA KNOW ABOUT CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM?

As if politicians didn't have enough image problems, the issue du jour of contemporary politics has been campaign-finance reform; the media and, to a lesser degree, the American public have begun to take notice of all the money that flows in and out of Washington.

A funny thing happened to George W. Bush's smooth path to the nomination: he faced a challenger in John McCain who was willing to flout convention and take active steps toward eliminating many of the money trains that lead directly into politicians' coffers. Although McCain fell short in his bid for the nomination, his popularity among independent voters and his ability to, as George Will put it, use the issue of campaign finance to stimulate the media's "erogenous zone" has blazed a trail that others are bound to follow. Even Al Gore, who has been associated with some campaign finance irregularities in the past, has gotten in on the act, promising to make the elimination of soft money "[his] top priority, if [we] entrust [him] with the Presidency." We here at SoYouWanna.net would like to take a look at what's going on here and try to make some sense of all the rhetoric and innuendo.

1. LEARN SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE

Firstly, we should review what all the fuss is about. Much of the controversy surrounds something called "soft money." Since the early 1970s, Congress has (begrudgingly) established regulations limiting the amount Congress members and Presidential candidates can receive from single donors, regardless of whether they are corporations, organizations or individuals. In addition, Congress enticed candidates into accepting spending caps for their campaigns by offering Federal subsidies to those who agreed to limit themselves (George W. Bush is the first major party candidate to opt to forgo such federal funds). Thus emerged the practical capping of "hard money" and, for a while, all was well in Washington in the mid-1970s (except, of course, for that little thing called Watergate).

Soon enough, however, politicians and parties found tricks to circumvent these restrictions (way to improve your image, guys). They established Political Action Committees (PACs) that engage in "party activity" instead of direct campaigning. The PACs of each party operate as thinly veiled agents of their respective candidates, but, in retaining a semblance of autonomy, are exempt from the hard money limitations. The money raised by PACs has been deemed soft money since it remains largely unregulated, both as to the amount a single donor can give and also as to the maximum they can spend on an election. Over time, competition between the two parties led to an escalation of the role of soft money. These funds are often used during elections on so-called "issue ads": T.V. and radio spots that, while not launched directly by the candidates, are intended to garner support and votes. For the 1992 election, the two parties raised a combined 86 million dollars in soft money. By 1996, that figure had more than tripled, totaling over 260 million dollars, none of which was subject to meaningful government regulation. The upcoming battle between Bush and Gore is clearly on track to shatter previous records in soft money expenditure.

Ok, so you might be reading all this and asking, "Where is this money coming from and what's in it for the people who are supplying it?" Well, the answer to the first part of your question is the companies that depend on Federal legislation (or its absence) are all too willing to lend a helping hand to politicians that share their agendas. A quick look at the list of largest donors of soft money reveals the presence of tobacco companies like Phillip Morris, alcohol producers like Anheiser Busch, and Health-Care Maintenance Organizations (HMOs); rounding out the top of the list are labor unions. With regard to the second part of your question - "What's in it for them?" - the primary reason donors give money is because they believe that doing so will influence policies in their favor. Most people's ideal conceptions of democracy would not allow for government policies to be bought, just as they would not allow individual citizens to be bribed into voting for a given candidate.

At first glance, therefore, the debate over campaign finance seems simple: just as America would never tolerate a President who was ruled by his sex drive, so too should we refuse to accept a system in which politicians and political offices can be sold to the highest bidder. Yet, in reality, while few political figures challenge the theory behind campaign finance reforms, executing such measures in practice proves far more difficult, impeded by a wide range of obstacles - some subtle, some more overt.