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.

2. LEARN SOME OF THE OBSTACLES TO REFORM

For starters, most of the good old boys in congress now (and even some of the ladies) won their positions thanks, in part, to large donations from interest groups and unions, and with the help of PACs. Moreover, when seeking reelection, the incumbent is clearly in a better position to leverage the perks of his/her office into a steady stream of contributions. Those congress members who oppose soft money are hindering their own chances of reelection and the chances of their colleagues in office. Understandably, the party leaders exert immense pressure to leave the rules alone so that those in power can keep their jobs.

Partisan politics complicate the issue, leaving Congress locked in a stalemate. Republicans are more than willing to cap union gifts (which traditionally go to Democrats) but are far more reluctant to limit their own sugar daddies, big business. Democrats, for their part, have raised fire and brimstone over the issue of corporate contributions, but remain silent when it comes to the activities of unions and not-for-profit organizations. Most experts agree that a ban on all forms of soft money would likely hurt the Republicans more: they are the richer party and depend heavily on funding from the wealthiest individuals and companies.

Complicating matters is the Supreme Court's insistence that monetary contributions are included in the First Amendment right to free speech and expression; in the 1976 decision of Buckley v. Valeo, the Court pronounced that, "virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money." In essence, the Court declared that candidates must be induced into accepting meaningful limitations on spending, rather than being required, by law, to do so. Although Senator Arlen Specter (Republican, PA) and Senator Ernest F. Hollings (Democrat, SC) jointly proposed amending the U.S. Constitution to permit such limits, they met with widespread opposition from their colleagues and the proposal quickly failed.

After all of that background, we thought we would present you with the specific arguments on both sides of the campaign finance issue, particularly as they are voiced within the context of the current Presidential election.

3. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

"Money used on advertisements is equivalent to speech; Americans have a Constitutional right to engage in political discourse, however costly it may be."

The Argument: Although the notion that elections hinge on fund-raising and 30-second commercials is disturbing, to say the least, it is not nearly as troubling as the prospect of the government setting limits on candidates' rights to express their views. The effort to stifle campaign spending, however well intentioned, fails to recognize the fundamental rights of citizens in this country. Why should a well-funded organization or individual that has a message for the people be prohibited from delivering it? Don't such restrictions on funding deny the concept of the free marketplace of ideas? In truth, Big Brother has no place telling American citizens and businesses how to spend their money.

The Response: No one proposes a measure that would limit a candidate's right to speak or get his/her message out. Most campaign finance proposals are accompanied by plans to federally subsidize elections to ensure that candidates have the ability to run their ads and fund their grassroots activities. Sadly, in our current political climate, raising money and talking to the people have become one and the same. Perhaps, without so much pressure to extract every dollar, politicians would find the time to discuss issues that actually captivate a national audience. Although Al Gore's repeated offer to George W. to "end T.V. ads and debate twice a week on the issues" is more a political gimmick than a serious policy proposal, his offer rests on a compelling premise that campaigns should reward substance and not style or breadth of exposure.

"If tighter restrictions on individual donations are introduced, politicians will still raise the same amount of money - now, it will just be about the number of donations instead of their size."

The Argument: After Lamar Alexander and Dan Quayle dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination, they both cited the $2,000 limit per person on campaign contributions as having all but given the election to Bush. How does this work? Well, according to Alexander and Quayle, the low per person limit meant that any candidate that wanted to raise serious money in the primary would have to do so through contact with thousands of potential donors. That type of large-scale operation required far too great an initial expenditure than either Quayle or Alexander could afford. If the restrictions are tightened, the only figures capable of pursuing political careers will be the party favorite and the independently wealthy. We will see fewer candidates, fewer challenges of the establishment, and more party pawns - none of which is good for democracy. Do you think it is a coincidence that, in the last few years, we have seen a proliferation of business tycoons turned self-funded candidates (e.g., Perot)? Well, if campaign finance reform further restricts spending of donated funds, you can expect to hear a lot more from big-eared billionaires.

The Response: The surprising success of a figure like John McCain demonstrates that if a candidate presents an attractive message, the money will come. Campaign giving via the Internet is now the new rage, allowing the majority of citizens to give a few bucks to support their preferred candidate. In any event, though limiting the per-person donation is a good start- it prevents one or two wealthy figures from unduly influencing an election - it is just that, a start. We should also look to ban all soft money, leaving politicians free to devote their energies to helping their real constituency, the American public.

"Our tax dollars shouldn't be used to fund politicians."

The Argument: Our government is already too bloated and taxes are too high. Why should we commit further money to enabling politicians to sling mud at each other via T.V. ads? If they want to do so, that's their right, but why should the tax dollars of the American public go to pay for it?

The Response: As it stands, the federal funds used on elections come from a voluntary check-off item on federal tax returns. Even if that were not the case, with all the Government spends on other areas (defense, education, social programs), why should elections, the mechanism through which democracy operates, be left out? After all, the amount spent on federal campaign subsidies represents a negligible portion of our federal budget and could easily be kept from growing out of control.

4. HEAR SOME ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

"Money has a corrupting influence on politics - it undercuts the basic democratic premise of 'one person, one vote' by allowing the wealthiest among us to exert undue influence."

The Argument: Politicians are supposed to be free to pursue the best course for our nation. Their job, after all, is a noble and important one: they represent "the people" in the political arena. How can politicians be expected to make the right decisions when their hands are tied by the interests of those whose money put them in office? The short answer is that they can't, and we, as a society, must have the forethought not to put them in that position. Federal subsidizing of elections and the banning of soft money would level the playing field and let all ideas, not just those of the rich, be considered.

The Response: It is not necessarily true that people only give money to change candidates' policies. An explicit bargain to that effect would actually be illegal. Another possible scenario is that the donors give money to the candidate whose positions mirror their own. If that is, in fact, the case then the process of giving money represents political activism, just like writing a letter to a member of Congress, protesting a law, or starting an organization. In this age of political apathy, shouldn't our government encourage rather than stifle those who wish to engage in political behavior?

"The present system is too favorable to the incumbent. Campaign finance reform will be a vehicle for change, giving the challenger a fighting chance."

The Argument: Over 90% of House members and 70% of Senators win their bids for reelection. Part of the reason for this lies in the system of campaign finance. Incumbents are able to turn their office's power into campaign funds, building a political war chest that frightens away strong challengers and decimates the weak. All of this translates into a stagnant "politics as usual" atmosphere in Washington.

The Response:There are better ways than campaign finance reform to address the issue of incumbency, such as term limits. Yes, the system in place does allow politicians to solicit donations, but these lobbying efforts are legitimate attempts by American companies and organizations to express their opinions. Although "money talks" has become a cliche in most contexts, its inescapability seems lost on those who naively plug campaign finance reform as the quick fix for our society.