Column: States still lack control of campaign spending

by Adam Koeppel

Tufts Daily

U-Wire

It's election time. Television advertisements are beginning to run. Signs are decorating lawns throughout the country. People in suits are standing on street corners, shaking hands and flashing smiles.

And candidates are searching for money. Politicians are devoting more time to this quest than to any other part of their campaigns - upwards of 60 percent of their time campaigning.

Money has been the mother's milk of politics for the last century. Last year, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001. After years of rallying by U.S. Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, a meaningful campaign finance reform law for federal elections has passed.

This is the first change to campaign finance laws since 1971. While the BCRA is a strong step in the right direction, more reform is necessary before candidates can devote their attention to voters.

Federal campaign finance reform was a monumental change to our governmental structure. However, federal law can only cover federal elections. Despite the passage of the BCRA, many states lack meaningful campaign finance controls.

Now that individuals and corporations can no longer donate large sums to federal campaigns, they will shift their attention to states. More corporate money will flow into state elections and state political committees. State government will see a rising influence of wealthy contributors in state politics, and voters will lose representation in their state houses. State political action committees will still run issue ads attacking state candidates.

Each state should follow the example set by the federal government. Many of the reforms passed in the BCRA are applicable at the state level. Voters must challenge their state governments to pass campaign finance reform laws similar to the BCRA.

In addition to restriction on fundraising, public financing of campaigns would decrease the influence of big money contributions in government. Public funding laws usually require states to "match funds" with candidates who fundraise under strict guidelines. Under many public-funding laws, candidates can only accept small donations from individuals, and no money from corporations, unions and PACs.

While these laws do use taxpayer money to fund campaigns, they allow politicians to focus on voters instead of fundraising. Half the money a clean election candidate receives comes with no strings attached, and any other donations are too small to buy influence.

Massachusetts passed the powerful Clean Elections Law in 1998 with a landslide two-thirds majority, yet there is an effort now an effort to repeal it. Proposition Three on the November ballot asks voters if they want their tax money to fund elections. This biased wording does not reflect the Clean Elections Law. Candidates who ran under the Clean Elections law spent much more of their time communicating with voters and less time fundraising.

Massachusetts's voters will hopefully uphold the Clean Elections law in November, and other states will follow suit by passing public campaign laws similar to those in Massachusetts.

The media exerts an immense influence in political campaigns. The focus of many campaigns today is television advertisements, and campaign ads cost vast sums of money to run. Candidates spend over 90 percent of their campaign funds on television ads. It can cost tens of thousand of dollars to run one 30-second ad during prime time.

Candidates without large war chests of campaign funds often cannot compete in elections. Candidates who accept large donations from PACs, unions and corporations can run many ads, and exert a vast influence over voters. State and Federal governments issue the licenses that allow radio and television stations to operate. The regulatory commissions should require stations to donate time to candidates.

Although this concept is controversial, and it requires much thought before implementation, it has the potential to change campaigns at all levels. The state and federal governments should examine enacting laws requiring mandatory airtime donations by radio and television stations.

The passage of the BCRA can usher in a new era of meaningful campaign finance reform. If state governments follow the lead of Congress and pass new, innovative campaign financing laws, citizens will be empowered, and campaigns will again focus on winning the support of voters. Money, in the form of political contributions, has wreaked havoc on the American democratic political system, and it is time to loosen its grip.