McCain-Feingold a Pale Imitation of Authors' Original Plans by Stuart Rotherberg
Although supporters of the McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan campaign finance proposal promise the dawning of a new day in politics and opponents on both sides of the aisle warn of impending doom for their parties, I'm struck by just how much the campaign finance debate has changed since June 26, 1996. That's the day supporters of the original McCain-Feingold measure, which was co-sponsored by Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson (R), failed to end a filibuster, killing the bill in the Senate. That proposal banned political action committees, set voluntary spending limits on primary and general election campaigns in exchange for free TV time and discounted mail rates, and required candidates to raise 60 percent of campaign funds from their home states. "Bundling," for which EMILY's List has become famous, would have also been prohibited. The 1996 measure did not contain a partial public-financing provision for candidates who agreed to abide by federal spending limits, something contained in proposals that passed the Democratic-controlled House and Senate in 1994. But the 1996 bill was dramatically different and much more radical in its approach (that is, better or worse, depending on your point of view) than the current bill. In essence, only the ban on soft money remains from the original bill, supplemented by a constitutionally tenuous ban on soft-money-funded issue ads by interest groups 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election. Although Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) have made it clear they put together a bill that they believe could pass both houses of Congress and be signed by President Bush, they have never completely backed off from their earlier proposal. McCain surely would prefer legislation closer to the bill he authored six years ago. Reform advocates, including Common Cause President Scott Harshbarger, acknowledge that they too want more. "This is only an incremental step. If this becomes the final step, we have failed. When you have momentum, the key is to seize it," he told me recently. Harshbarger seems to be promising a two-track strategy, with renewed focus on state campaign finance reform efforts and a push for free media time at the national level. But at the federal level, the months leading up to the House passage of McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan showed how difficult it is to enact campaign finance legislation, not how eager the country and politicians are to pass it. When I asked McCain about the next step in reform at the federal level, he mentioned two main steps. First, he said, "Change the rules that govern the Federal Election Commission to insure that the commission writes rules and regulations to enforce laws." And second, "Check the consequences, both intended and unintended, of the new law and close loopholes." Although it may be tempting for some opponents of McCain-Feingold to sound an alarm about another round of proposals, advocates of further changes in the campaign finance system face considerable near-term hurdles. Indeed, supporters of spending limits, the elimination of PACs or the introduction of public financing are finding that those goals are much more distant now than they were half a dozen years ago. Some Members of Congress, of course, continue to call for public financing of federal elections. "I personally believe that we are not going to get real reform until we have a public financing program," said Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) on the floor of the Senate last March. "Not only do I support eliminating soft money, but I support full public financing for campaigns," echoed Rep. Barbara Lee (D- Calif.) in rising to support Shays-Meehan earlier this month. But the current bill essentially endorses the privately funded system by raising the limits on individual contributions, leaving political action committees untouched and even acknowledging the appropriateness of interest group "independent expenditures," as long as they are funded with "hard money." McCain believes that support for additional changes to the campaign funding system will depend on whether McCain-Feingold-Shays-Meehan is effective. "If it works," he told me, "you won't see any more clamoring for public financing." And it if doesn't work? "Then," said the Arizona Senator, "all of the other options have to be explored, from no contribution limits and complete disclosure to public financing." But public financing is a huge step from the current system, and it is difficult to imagine legislators being eager for another campaign finance reform battle. The public, which has never placed a high priority on campaign finance reform, will only be more cynical about further changes in the next few years. After all, they were told how important this McCain-Feingold-Shays- Meehan bill would be. Advocates of reform will now have to press their fight at the state level. But even there, the battle won't be easily carried. It is, after all, a Democratic- controlled state Legislature in Massachusetts that has refused to appropriate money for a fund it had already established for the public financing of elections.
