by Benjamin Wyatt
As usual, the media is doing a horrible job of covering the campaign finance reform vote in the House on McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan. Thus, I feel it is important to present some thoughts and clarifications about the current debate.
A large number of Democrats are afraid that a Soft Money ban will put them at a funding disadvantage against the Republicans. However, they are already facing a major fundraising disadvantage, which is only getting worse every day now that Clinton is out of office…Fundamentally, the Democrats are disadvantaged in the short term no matter which way you look at it. Their short-sighted obsession during the Clinton years with cultivating the large Soft Money checks donated by a handful of Hollywood stars, media moguls, and trial lawyers wanting their picture taken with the president means they are between a rock and a hard place now that Clinton has been replaced by a Republican in the Oval Office. If McCain-Feingold becomes law, Democrats will be vastly outspent by the strong Republican hard-money machine (since they let their own hard-money apparatus atrophy under Clinton). If McCain-Feingold is foiled and the status quo remains, Democrats will still be vastly outspent due to the swiftly increasing Republican edge in Soft Money resulting from the new Bush presidency.The Dem's only hope is to batten down the hatches during 2002 (hoping that memories of 2000 and a major Bush gaffe between now and then counteract the massive Republican advantage coming from re-districting) and concentrate on seizing the moral high ground so they can re-orient their party around a massive grass-roots get out the vote campaign for 2004 (like the Republicans did between 1976 and 1980).
In this slightly longer-term sense, the passage of McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan and its over-touted Soft Money ban could have some positive effects on the evolution of the Democratic Party. As I see it, passage of the bill would mark three steps forward (two purely for the Dems, one for the nation as a whole), but one significant step back (or more accurately a backpedaling side-step) for the cause of true campaign finance reform.
The steps forward will be:
1) It will wean the Democratic party from an over-dependence on a soft money strategy which is defunct now that Bush is in the White House. (Since soft money gravitates toward power and star wattage).
2) It will allow the Democrats to claim the moral high ground (the most important single factor in any election) by implementing a reform that appears to be in the best interests of the country but to their short-term disadvantage.
3) Though the contributions impeded by the soft money ban will inevitably find a
way back into the system, a much less-focused-on provision of the bill would
have a significant effect on elections. This provision would restrict outside
groups from running attack ads targeting a specific candidate within 60 days of
an election. The cost of media space in competitive districts routinely rises by
between 300% to 500% in the two months preceding an election due to attack ads
run by outside organizations hoping to influence the election (The NRA's, Labor
Unions, and business associations, etc.). Politicians are often trapped by this
feeding frenzy (as the price of the media time they believe they need is bid up
and up), and it is why the cost of their campaigns (and the resulting
influencability of these politicians) is going up so fast. Thus, on a certain
level, to rectify campaign financing problems, you can't simply restrict
candidates and parties, you need to extract the vampiric special interest
organizations enmeshed in the system (the basis of Jonathan Rauch's book,
Government's End). The cost of campaigns could be halved if this provision is
enacted and deemed constitutional (it will probably be struck down by the
Supreme Court).
OK, But there is also a major step to the side (and possibly back) in the bill, which no one seems to be focusing on.
It results from the following conundrum:
As long as political campaigns cost oodles of money (note: costs would be slightly reduced by the provision mentioned above and significantly reduced if candidates were given free TV and Print media space like they are in most European countries) candidates will always be beholden to one of the following:
1) Rich Special Interests, Corporations, and Individuals (i.e. the current
contribution system)
2) The Candidate himself (i.e. personal fortune (and it is usually his)
3) The Government (i.e. Public financing)
The vast majority of CFR measures misunderstand these three factors and think
our present problems can be fixed by restricting financing option #1.These
short-sighted bills take the easy way out by regulating the input system without
addressing the output dynamic which creates the need for inputs in the first
place and by failing to create an alternative input dynamic which could breath
oxygen into the system (patching a hole in a leaky dam with a million tons of
water weighing on it will only create another leak). (The bill actually widens a
pre-existing hole in #1 by raising the hard-money limit from$1000 to $2000)
The current system (#1) is obviously not working. However, by restricting financing option #1 (contributions), failing to boost option #3 (Public Financing), and refusing to acknowledge option #2 (Self-Financed campaigns), McCain-Feingold only really enhances the ability of rich individuals to buy elections.
In a McCain/Feingold world it may be more difficult for special interests to influence poorer contribution-dependent politicians, however poorer contribution dependent politicians will become an endangered breed as the electoral process becomes the play-pen of the rich and famous. In other words, the rich won't buy politicians, they will become politicians. We already see this process working today (inspired by the post-Watergate McCain/Feingold type reforms which created "hard" and "soft" money in the first place.). Last election Jon Corzine (a Democrat mind you) spent more money than the entire Democratic party spent during whole campaign cycles a decade before to buy a New Jersey senate seat out from under a much more qualified (and poorer) moderate Republican opponent. Millionaires are currently over-represented in the US Senate by a factor of 5000 to 1, look for this percentage to only grow if this reform passes.
In the end, I think, only a combination of government financing with free media time for candidates will really do anything to improve the system. Libertarians might quake at this prospect (seeing a slippery slope toward favoritism and dictatorship), but it seems obvious that a non-partisan government administered trust-fund that distributed funds based on simple pre-set criteria would be a much less threatening and demanding master than the myriad special interests or rich elite of this country.
Democracy is a common good, like national defense, disaster relief, and environmental regulation. Imagine if our army was paid for by special interests, with one battalion loyal to Coca Cola and another to Pepsi, and another to the Labor Unions. It would be an absolute mess, right? This is what has happened to our democracy, and is why so very little ever gets done. The military needs a clear commander, the president. Democracy needs a clear commander too, the people. Democracy should be paid for by the society collectively if we expect our representatives to be representative of the society as a whole.
The danger, of course, is that if the public continues to view CFR as synonymous with a Soft Money ban, then it will be rudely awakened when nothing much changes for the better once this bill is passed. The resulting cynicism could impede the progress of public financing for a generation to come. I suppose that's why its our responsibility to get on our soap boxes and spread the word.