Campaign Finance reform was not originally on the set of policy solutions which I was planning on writing, however, I did take a class on this topic and furthermore I've been reading a lot about it. So, without further ado, a policy prescription for real campaign finance reform which meets the requirements of the first amendment while also stifling the appearance of corporate corruption.
Background
Campaign finance reform has been around since the late 1880's with the passage of the Pendleton Act which created civil service reform and as such made civil servants independent from politicians. However, modern campaign finance reform first came into existence with the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Commission Act. In 1974, Congress decided to cap not only contributions to political candidates but the amount of money which a candidate could spend. Furthermore, it limited the use of personal wealth. In 1976, Buckley v. Valeo struck down part of this act as unconstitutional including the limits on expenditures as well as the limits on use of personal wealth. Perhaps the biggest contribution of FECA was the legitimization of PAC's, or political action committees in our election system. The history of court cases since Buckley is extensive but no other case has proven to be as influential with the exception of McConnell v. United States in which Senator Mitch McConnell and a consortium of liberal and conservative groups joined together to try and get the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002 struck down. However, McConnell and his allies failed and the McCain - Feingold bill which eliminated soft money ( the use of unlimited donations from large donors for "party-building" activities) was held as constitutional. This bill was incredible in its reach because not only did it eliminate soft money but it also made it illegal for advocacy groups(non party, non candidate groups) to advertise on television 60 days before the general election. Personally, I was amazed by this because I thought it would certainly be struck down as a violation of free speech and freedom of association but the Supreme Court amazed me along with everyone else I suppose. Our current campaign finance system allows donations of up to $5,000 to PAC's, $2,000 to candidates and a total contribution limit from individuals to slightly under $100,000. However, the McCain - Feingold bill did create a loophole, the 527 organization which allows for unlimited contributions of any size. The 527 simply cannot expressly call for the election or defeat of a candidate. This loophole may end up being the savior of the Democratic Party because citizens like George Soros have decided to donate $10 Million to 527 organizations like America Coming Together, the Media Fund, and MoveOn.org. The Democrats are outraising the GOP in terms of their 527 organizations while overall President Bush has raised $170 Million compared to the $162 Million of the 9 Democrats combined. This is all hard money which has been raised pursuant to the $2,000 cap. The intention of the McCain-Feingold Bill was to reduce spending in federal elections and to reduce the influence of big corporations. However, the practice of pooling donations together, essentially where one person collects 100 checks from friends of $2,000 each, this practice has not eliminated to look of corruption. It has left the American people more skeptical than ever. Despite all these reforms, we are left with a 2004 election cycle which will spend approximately $3 Billion. An election cycle which will spend over twice as much as 2000. While corruption may not be rampant, the appearance of it certainly is as oil industry, telecom industry, financial, and other execs round up large sums of money for their candidates. McCain-Feingold has made the problem worse. America deserves a solution.
This post was from March 2004, and the way the campaign unfolded reveals the inaccuraties of the post, namely:
1) The McCain-Feingold bill did not make it illegal for advocacy groups to run ads within 60 days of an election. We saw tons of ads like this, from the Swift Boat Vets, the Media Fund, and others. McCain-Feingold did prohibit direct corporate or labor union funding for these ads. But, there were more of these ads than in any other election.
2) McCain-Feingold did not create the 527 loophole. THat was created long before by the FEC. But, McCain-Feingold did nothing to close the 527 loophole either. It's sponsors were naive enough to think that if federal politicians didn't ask for the money, that people wouldn't give it to outside groups.
3) It is therefore wrong to say that McCain-Feingold banned soft money. It merely moved it from parties to 527 groups. However, because of the increases in hard money limits, the parties raised more money than they ever had before.
IF you want to close the 527 loophole, you can visit http://www.therestofus.org/527s.htm
Posted by: derek cressman | December 17, 2004 at 05:50 PM