A preview of arguments likely to be heard from both sides on the role of money in politics
The purification of politics
is an iridescent dream," Kansas Republican Sen. John James Ingalls wrote
more than a century ago. In a week's time and down the hall from Ingalls'
straight-backed statue in the Capitol, his political descendants will open
debate on legislation intended to further curb the power of money in political
campaigns.
After nearly six years of footwork and filibuster, the Senate will spend two weeks on the merits of a campaign finance bill written, revised and probably memorized by two unlikely allies and political renegades: Republican John McCain of Arizona and Democrat Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin.
The centerpiece of their legislation (S 27) has been the same since the 1996 elections: a ban on "soft money" contributions to national political parties, unregulated cash that is redefining campaigns.
The bill would for the first time restrict "issue ads" typically bought by interest groups, corporations and labor unions to express their views on an issue that might figure in a campaign. Issue ads that identify a particular candidate would be banned within 60 days of a general election; corporations and unions could not use their treasuries to pay for them.
Anyone who spent more than $10,000 a year on broadcast ads would have to disclose who paid for them, and coordination between candidates and interest groups would be considered a political contribution subject to financial limits and reporting requirements.
On March 19, the 38-page bill goes before the full Senate for two weeks of debate, with no limit on the number of potential amendments. Every senator will want to have a say, a chance to perhaps capture public attention or persuade a reluctant colleague. In the end, the arguments may be boiled down to five reasons to support the bill and five reasons to oppose it:
Former Vice President A1 Gore's 2000 campaign was haunted by allegations that he had used his White House phone to help the Democratic Party raise "soft" money in 1996 and even canvassed a Buddhist temple on a trip to California. Contributions approaching a half-million dollars to his library may have helped persuade former President Bill Clinton to pardon fugitive financier Marc Rich in the closing hours of his administration. Already, President Bush has rewarded major Republican Party contributors with ambassadorships in Europe.
While individuals are limited to $1,000 contributions per candidate per election and political action committees are held to $5,000, anyone can donate as much as he or she wishes to a national party committee. Under the vague definition of "party building" activities, the committee is free to use the cash on advertising that can benefit or harm particular candidates.
Corporations, industrialists, unions, professional associations and interest groups of all persuasions were not long in exploiting this gap in campaign finance law that had been created by a combination of a 1978 ruling by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and a 1979 revision (PL 96-187) of the Federal Election Campaign Act. (FEC, p. 524)
Soft money that amounted to only about $22 million in the 1984 national campaigns had risen to $260 million in the 1995-96 election cycle, then nearly doubled to more than $480 million in 1999-2000. In the 1996 presidential campaign, 20 people made contributions of at least a quarter-million dollars; in 2000, the number was up to 78.
"The extraordinary spending in the 2000 election gives monied interests more influence on the Congress and the President than ever before," Feingold said during the bill's January unveiling.
Banning such donations, supporters of the bill say, would bring government closer to average Americans.
Mindful that the Supreme Court considers campaign contributions protected free speech, McCain-Feingold supporters say their soft money ban could survive a legal challenge. They cite a Supreme Court comment in last year's Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC decision recognizing "a concern not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors. "
According to a memo by the political watchdog group Common Cause, "Particularly where such ads are run right before an election, it is overwhelmingly clear that they are intended by their sponsors to be campaign ads, and they have the same effect on the voters as campaign ads. As a matter of common sense and political reality, such ads should be treated by law the same as any other campaign ads."
A provision in the bill, offered by Republican Sens. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and James M. Jeffords of Vermont, would regulate issue ads that attack or praise a candidate.
Supporters argue that the bill is needed to shed light on thinly veiled campaign advertising paid for by corporate and labor groups. For example, it would prevent the pharmaceutical industry from putting money into Citizens for Better Medicare, which aired television ads in congressional races last year. The Snowe-Jeffords proposal would ban corporate and labor-funded broadcast ads that refer to a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. It does not cover direct mail, voter guides, telephone banks or Internet communications.
The bill would permit corporate and
labor PACs to air such ads, but money for those efforts would be subject
to standard contribution limits and disclosure. Nonprofit groups could
pay for such issue ads if they raised the money solely from individual
contributors, thus preventing labor unions and corporations from funneling
money through shell groups.
"The laws are less and less relevant to what is happening," said Trevor Potter, a former member of the commission and general counsel to McCain's presidential campaign. "This is something Congress will have to do, not the FEC."
For instance, recent campaigns saw an explosion of "527 groups" or "stealth PACs" - political action committees that used a loophole in the finance laws to raise and spend unlimited amounts of unreported money before Congress passed a law (PL 106-230) requiring disclosure. (2000 CQ Weekly, P. 2898)
Even then, several of the high-profile 527s said they would reorganize in order to continue their activities without disclosure.
After the 2000 elections, FEC commissioner Karl J. Sandstrom said the episode was a "poster child for an enfeebled FEC."
Another outdated concept in campaign finance law is the "magic words" test, which describes advertisements that use specific language to advocate the election or defeat of a candidate. A study by the Brennan Center for justice at New York University School of Law found that in the 1998 congressional elections, just 4 percent of candidate ads used the "magic words."
Not changing the laws to keep up with current practices, supporters argue, will only lead to greater influence of money in politics and further scandals.
Even those relatively safe from political challenge must set aside a certain amount of time each week or month to raise money - time they cannot spend on legislation or constituent service.
During a 1997 Senate debate on an earlier version of the McCain-Feingold bill, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada spoke his frustration: "We must bring attention back to what the real issues are in campaign finance - that is, the fact that senators and representatives spend large amounts of their time and their efforts simply raising money in order to pay for escalating media costs."
"Take a small state like the State of Nevada or ... the State of Arizona: $4 million, which has a relatively small campaign fund in this modern era, sadly. To raise that much money, you have to raise about $13,000 or $14,000 a week every year. You don't take a week off for Christmas. If you do, you have to raise more money. If you do that 52 weeks a year for six years, you can raise enough to be competitive in a race.... In some states it takes a lot more money. In those states, you have to raise twice that much or three times or four times that much. Instead of raising $13,000 or $14,000 a week, people have to raise $50,000 a week."
Candidates Must Be Divorced From
Interest Groups
For example, an interest group that has already contributed the maximum to a candidate could not pay for an advertisement, purchase supplies or lease a car at that candidate's request. Issue ads coordinated with a federal candidate would be considered contributions and thus subject to hard money limits.
Supporters argue that this would
limit a candidate's ability to call upon a friendly industry or trade association
to spend additional money on his or her behalf. The same restriction would
apply to political parties, removing party committees as conduits for interest
groups seeking to provide additional support for a preferred candidate.
PACs would still be allowed to make unlimited independent expenditures
against a candidate.
The First Amendment Protects
Political Activity
Opponents say a ban on soft money would deny contributors a voice in politics. "In order to do what McCain-Feingold would like to do, you do have to amend the First Amendment for the first time in history," said Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the Senate's most implacable enemy of campaign finance legislation.
Though Republicans like McConnell bridle at restrictions on soft money, since their party raises more of it, some Democrats have grown edgy about the limits since they have been closing the fundraising gap.
Interest groups, such as the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee, said that restrictions on "issue" ads would unfairly limit the right of corporations, unions and trade associations to be involved in elections and legislative activity. The committee contends that a corporation could not buy a radio or television ad within 30 days of a primary election that said, "Urge [Congressman X] to vote against the McCain-Feingold bill."
Douglas Johnson, the group's legislative director, said March 1 that the rules on issue ads would "disrupt our ability to inform like-minded citizens regarding what their elected officials are doing, and two, greatly impede our ability to effectively communicate with elected representatives on our members' behalf"
The bill's reporting requirements for independent expenditures also raise constitutional questions. Under McCainFeingold, for example, an organization buying air time for an independent expenditure of more than $10,000 would have to report the purchase to the Federal Election Commission within 48 hours of the time it is made. The Right to Life Committee maintains that Congress "lacks the authoritv to demand that [we] declare in advance when and where we intend to utter a politician's name to the public."
Soft Money Strengthens Political
Parties
Opponents of the McCain-Feingold bill argue not only that banning soft money is unconstitutional, but that it would hamstring the ability of parties to raise money and support their candidates.
Last year, when McConnell organized hearings on the role of parties, Duke University political scientist Michael C. Munger testified that banning soft money would make special interest groups even more powerful by "crippling" party organizations. While the bill would ban soft money gifts to parties, it would not prevent lobbying or membership groups from collecting similar donations from individuals as long as they were spent on "issue" advertisements.
Political parties now use soft money to help pay for many things beyond ads, including consultants, office space, salaries and equipment. That way, they have more "hard" money to give candidates. Taking soft money away from parties, opponents of the bill say, would leave them weaker against special interests and would especially hurt their ability to finance challengers to incumbents. Since incumbents tend to attract the bulk of PAC money, challengers often rely on party funds.
Contribution Limits Are Too Strict
The McCain-Feingold bill "does not seriously address the reality that hard-money contribution limits have been deteriorated by 30 years of inflation," said Don Thoren, president of the National Association of Business Political Action Committees.
McConnell said in a March 1 debate, "There's no question that at the very least they should be indexed for inflation. It's utterly absurd to be operating in 2001 with 1974 dollars."
In its current form, the McCain-Feingold bill would increase the amount of hard money that could be given to state parties - from $5,000 to $10,000 - but not other limits. Many Republicans and at least one Democrat in the Senate say the limits on contributions to candidates need to be increased.
Tennessee Republican Sen. Fred Thompson plans to offer an amendment that would approximately triple the hard money limits and index them for inflation. Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has again introduced a campaign finance bill (S 22) that also would triple hard-money limits and index them.
Hagel's proposal has drawn support from at least three Democrats who also support McCain-Feingold, evidence that a hard money increase could attract a bipartisan majority in the Senate.
The high cost of buying time on television for campaign commercials, a chief use of hard money by political candidates, is another reason to increase the current limits. A study released March 6 by the Alliance for Better Campaigns puts the cost of political television ads in 2000 between $771 million and $1 billion. In addition, Republican fundraisers support raising the limits, saying it will improve fundraising by campaigns at a time when many donors have been drawn to soft money.
Republican Party committees raised 10 percent more hard money during the 1999-2000 election cycle than they did during the 1995-96 period, while soft-money receipts went up 73 percent.
Unions Would Have n Unfair Advantage
Many Republicans, including President Bush, say that union members should be able to request that their dues not pay for political activities if they do not agree with the position or candidate the union is backing.
Such a provision, which Republicans call "paycheck protection," is not in the bill and is considered a "poison pill" that would alienate Democrats if it were included.
In making the case against paycheck protection, McCain has said that if it were enacted, then shareholders in public corporations also should be given the chance to vote on whether corporate funds are used for contributions to political groups or issue advertisements.
Instead, the bill codifies the Supreme Court's decision in the 1988 case of Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which requires unions to give non-union members the right to object to their fees being used for political purposes. The provision does not apply to dues-paying members.
The Right of Association Would
Be Limited
The AFL-CIO argues that the coordination limitations are so broad that they "could outlaw virtually any union activity," including lobbying visits and candidate appearances before union audiences. The bill defines coordinated activity as "anything of value" provided to a candidate who previously has had discussions with a group on campaign activity.
The Alliance for Justice, a collection of liberal public-interest groups, said that the coordination provisions would prevent nonprofits from discussing an issue with a candidate and then running their own ads on that issue later in the election.
"In an attempt to go after the truly bad actors, the bill unfortunately slips into areas that are protected," said alliance spokesman Tim Mooney.
For example, the bill would prevent
an organization from hiring a consultant or other staffer who previously
had worked in a similar capacity for a political candidate.