The long saga of campaign finance reform reached a turning point very early last Thursday as members of the U.S. House of Representatives voted 240 to 189 in favor of the Shays-Meehan Bill. The vote was the culmination of months of parliamentary wrangling and an epic 15-hour debate on the floor of the House. It also is one of the most egregious examples of the spineless and intellectually vacuous positions that the public and its representatives are apt to take regarding this issue.
Concern about campaign financing came unto its own during the fallout of the 1996 and 1998 elections as the public slowly became aware of the gross excesses of the Clinton fund-raising machine and of the millions of dollars being spent in the form of soft money contributions to national party committees.People were shocked after learning that influential people tried to influence elections and that the governance of the biggest economic and political power of the world would be a subject of concern among firms, unions and interest groups.
Predictably, a group of self-aggrandizing politicians led by the ubiquitous John McCain arrived on the scene ready and willing "To Do Something" about this new problem. The supporters of campaign finance reform portrayed themselves as mavericks, fighting the system that continued to try to silence them and as the saviors of American democracy. The vast majority of these legislators continued to accept soft money donations for their re-election campaigns, claiming that the system of big donations was so corruptive that even they had to succumb to the evil of money in order to save the system.
These public servants pushed for a reform bill, finally passing one in the Senate and now one in the House. So what does this bill do? The main provision bans soft money contributions to state and national parties by corporations, unions or any other interested group. Also included is a ban on issue advertisements 60 days prior to an election sponsored by any group; be it the NRA, the Sierra Club, the NAACP, the Club for Growth or any association of citizens that want to promote a remedy for any issue.
This ban is almost certainly unconstitutional, but that does not deter the self-appointed defenders of democracy, they are going to "Do Something to stop the Evil" of money in politics, dammit. The spirit of doing whatever it takes to solve a perceived problem is the worst tendency of democracy. Has anyone ascertained that soft money or interest ads actually hurt our republic or that there is any sort of documented case of successful bribery?
No, but there are plenty of polls that say that people "care" about this issue and it has been relatively easy to demagogue by playing off of petty class envy, describing horrifying hypotheticals of corruption and by conjuring up images of reformers of yore such as Theodore Roosevelt.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
But isn't money in politics inherently corruptive? Absolutely not. The groups that give money to a certain party do so because their members feel strongly about a political issue and wish for their voices on it to be heard. Giving money is no different than any other political activity; be it "get out the vote" work by unions, staged demonstrations by environmentalists or massive letter writing campaigns by Common Cause.
In fact, monetary help may be less effective than these other political activities - just look at the fate of Enron. It gave huge contributions and nobody is willing stand up for it or to bail it out.
What is needed is full disclosure of where money is coming from so that the public can make up its own mind as to whether a certain group has too much influence over an individual. I can understand the prohibition on union and corporation money, it originates from stockholders or members that may not approve of a certain party's agenda, but why stop groups of individuals from giving as much as they see fit to a party or candidate? Why curtail free speech by stopping citizen or industry groups from advocating policy they see as beneficial? Supporters of this bill have ignored these points in their almost religious fervor to "reform" the current system.
Campaign finance reform in its current state is draconian in scope, imprudent in motive and contrary to our nation's highest law. President Bush should act in the same principled manner he has shown in prosecuting the war and veto this bill.
by Michael Carrasco
Daily Lobo Columnist
Questions or comments can be sent to Michael Carrasco at mjc_carrasco@hotmail.com.
