| |
The Issue of Campaign Finance Reform
Posted
04-04-2001
It is quite interesting watching the efforts in Washington to bring
campaign finance under control. Senators McCain and Feingold have pushed
their reform legislation through the Senate, and it will be interesting to
see how the House version is dissimilar. While there may be sincere interest
in some Senate and House members to "reform" the campaign finance process,
there will be tremendous opposition from other members who realize the two
major parties have a system in place that gives them great advantages.
There will be Constitutional
issues relating to the First Amendment rights of groups whose activities
would be limited by any reforms. I'm sure that those opposed to change will
use those arguments to the fullest. The losses on the Republican side would
come primarily from restriction of large "soft dollar" contributions by
corporations. On the Democratic side, it would be large contributions from
unions that would be restricted. Do the proposed restrictions limit the
freedom of speech of those groups? What do you think?
What I think should be a more
pragmatic concern about the process is, what will the landscape look like if
the reforms go through? Will we create a better system, or will we create
other problems? Specifically, will the soft dollar contributions go from the
political parties where there is at least some public accountability, to
special interest groups who carry out their own efforts to influence
elections? Those special interest groups are less accountable and have
already been shown to be potentially more vicious. An example was the group
that ran the Willie Horton ads in the 1988 Presidential election. They had
some "feel good" name about families or something, but they sure played
hardball. The Republican Party distanced themselves from the ads, but the
group certainly accomplished the party's goals. If they try to limit the
special interest groups from advertising sixty days before an election, it
will likely be a First Amendment issue.
Huge sums of money are
problematic at the national level of politics. They are a problem at the
state level too, but it is up to individual states to regulate their own
campaign finance process. Even at the local level, campaign finance could be
an issue, except that the sums of money are much smaller. Also, it is rare
to ever see special interest groups trying to influence many elections. If
it does occur, it is some interest group advocating a certain position with
regard to school boards and education. I've never yet seen any special
interest group running ads for a commissioner's race.
But money will be spent to
influence elections, and it will either be spent above board with reasonable
reporting guidelines, or we may drive it underground. That possibility is a
greater danger. We think the level of vitriol is something new in politics,
but it is as old as our political system. It is simply more pervasive
because of television, the Internet, and other advances in technology. So
while these efforts in Washington to "reform" the campaign finance process
may seem noble, I hope we don't create a system that is less open. I fear a
system where groups with nice sounding names are influencing elections, and
voters don't even know who they are. If large sums of money are going to be
spent on elections, do we want the money spent by political parties who we
know, or by special interest groups who may be camouflaging their
identities? |
