Reform campaign reform

General Challenge
    By Ned Andrews

The current popular appeal of campaign finance reform has me worried. John McCain and company propose to limit almost all types of contributions, with the argument that Washington should be free of special interests and the supposedly undue influence of wealthy individuals. Just like other campaign finance reform opponents, I begin by invoking the First Amendment. My criticisms, however, go deeper than that.

The claim that large contributors silence smaller ones is false. They may speak more loudly, but individuals and small groups are still allowed to put forth their positions. The right to speak freely is not the right to be heard. It is the right to make your best effort toward that goal, and all individuals and associations thereof deserve equal protection under law of that right. Campaign funding involves more than freedom of speech. It is part of the right to property. If someone desires to make a gift and another party is willing to accept it, no one else should be able to stop them from making such a transaction.

A frequent target of campaign finance reformers is the supposedly vast and unreachable corporate world. Well, corporations aren't as monolithic and impersonal as many people think. Corporations are formed and run by individuals or the directors they have chosen to represent them. Any investor in his right mind would examine a company's financial prospectus before forking over his money. Shouldn't he do the same for that company's political and social activities? As the rise of the "socially responsible investing" movement demonstrates, people are catching on. When companies see their market values drop, they will wonder why, and concerned parties will give them a reason. To rephrase the cliché, don't put your money where you don't want your mouth.

The so-called "soft money" organizations are in the same situation. The Democratic and Republican National Committees are essentially corporations whose "investment return" takes the form of political speech rather than monetary dividends. Through national committees, citizens or organizations can delegate their power to a body they believe is more knowledgeable of issues, more able to address their concerns, and more efficient in using their resources. Individuals are able to refine and channel what was once mere gut feeling into an articulated political agenda. Rather than remaining helplessly silent or railing at the chimera of "what's wrong with America," they can directly address the sources of our nation's problems and the people with the power to solve them.

Like my opponents, I believe any elected government has the potential for problems. However, I don't believe that the solution lies in abrogating speech and property rights. Therefore, I'd like to propose an alternative: requiring candidates and political committees to disclose all contributions they accept. By entering this information into their Internet site, which is already a virtual necessity for any self-respecting campaign, candidates can meet this requirement with little added cost. After the election, the final list of contributors and amounts would be submitted to the government as a matter of public record. Though I wouldn't demand such a disclosure from the private corporate donors themselves, doing so voluntarily would be a smart business move. Besides, any refusal would run the risk of sparking a public relations scandal.

Using candidate disclosures and business statements where available, public interest organizations can compile their own cross-referenced lists of "who's influencing whom," passing on this information to investigative agencies and the voting public.

There's a difference between influential access and quid pro quo bribery, and as long as we don't cross the line, individuals and groups should be allowed all the freedom we choose to exercise.

Back to Opinion...