Campaigning to reform campaign finance

BY DAVID OPPENHEIM

Possibly the most pressing issue facing our stagnant government today is campaign finance reform. With the narrow demise of the Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate, the stage has been cleared for two new congressional actions: Senator Fred Thompson's (R-TN) committee to investigate past abuses of campaign finance law--primarily by the 1996 Clinton re-election campaign; and the constitutional amendment on campaign finance reform, proposed by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI). While the McCain-Feingold Bill was soundly defeated in the Senate, its two sponsors have taken to the airwaves to promote their plan. All this begs the question: Why is the most pressing
issue in the political arena the manner in which candidates are allowed to pay for expensive campaigns?

The problem with both the present system and all existing plans to reform it is that there is no way for the government to constitutionally mandate spending limits for political campaigns, whether the limits are directed toward individuals or political parties. This problem stems from the 1975 Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision which protected campaign expenditures as free speech under the First Amendment. As a result, reformers have found that the only way to accomplish anything meaningful is the constitutional amendment route. This is a difficult process.

This particular proposal faces further difficulties because it strikes directly at advantages enjoyed by incumbent members of Congress--the very people whose approval is needed. For every McCain and Feingold, there are three members of Congress who are content with the status quo, or at most only piecemeal changes.

Two current targets of reformers are political action committee expenditures and "soft money." Both played a large role in the 1996 elections, the most expensive in history. PACs are already limited in the amount of money they can contribute to individual candidates. However, there is no limit on "issue advertisements" which are broadcast by groups such as the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, and the NRA. These are shown in areas with close elections and are tantamount to a campaign ad, clearly favoring one candidate over another. Soft money works in much the same way, except that the money comes from the parties rather than interest groups--which helps explain the extreme partisan nature of government.

Those who oppose these forms of funding suspect that interest groups' donations prompt the candidate to give favors and access to the groups and to vote as the groups dictate. Much of the uproar over President Clinton's actions is directed at his preferential treatment of donors. It's likely that the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House--the nighttime resting spot of many special house guests--is in the news more now than it was when Lincoln slept there.

Some reformers have even proposed eliminating donors entirely. That, however, leaves only two options: the unpopular alternative of taxpayer funded campaigns, or a total reliance on personal funding by candidates. The former is logically preferable, but not practical. The latter produces a system of government by the wealthy.

As long as there is no constitutional way to limit either candidates' expenditures or use of personal funds, it seems that the most equitable system would be one with fewer restrictions on donations. This would help negate the advantage of, say, a Michael Huffington. Also, in an ironic twist, eliminating restrictions would serve to ease partisan tensions: with a simpler system, there would be a decrease in accusations of wrongdoing. Maybe then our representatives could attend to the nation's business.

David Oppenheim is a sophomore in Davenport.

Back to Opinion...