t whoever they want to support
and give them as much as they want to give. If everyone knows who's
giving the big money, their views and actions will come under more
scrutiny," he said. Full disclosure of gifts, he said, would
deter corruption without the anti-democratic side-effects of current
regulations.
Needed: Trust in Democracy
Pastor Greer's political views may not appeal to everyone, but
neither his views nor opposing views should be suppressed by
government fundraising regulations, say Choice Three supporters.
What's behind these regulations? Who are the "moneyed
interests" that the prior choices find so fearful? Wealth is
spread across America, among Independents, Republicans, Democrats,
liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Who are these "special
interests" who hire lobbyists to do their selfish bidding?
At its best, democracy is a fair competition of ideas and interests.
Just about every professional, trade, business, consumer, religious,
and issue advocacy organization has ideas on how the nation should
spend public funds and make public policy. Every citizen has special
interests, and many are members of organizations that hire lobbyists
on their behalf. That's America.
Myths and scare tactics have gotten us into today's campaign
finance mess, say Choice Three supporters. Our representative system
of democracy has withstood the test of time and, until the 1970s,
worked well without much regulation of campaign finance and without
radically shifting power by widespread use of ballot initiatives
and referenda. Then the Watergate scandal precipitated a rush to
regulate political contributions, restricting everyone's freedom
in a vain attempt to control money and political power. But freedom
isn't easily regulated, and the reform effort backfired, in this
view. The way regulations systematically distort politics is far,
far more destructive to democracy than the occasional bribery
scandal had ever been. Political gridlock is epidemic. Elections
are tipped towards incumbents, celebrities, and the rich. Other
good candidates don't run for office or can't raise enough money
to compete. To revive democracy, we need more money for
campaigns and less regulation to ease fundraising and spur
discussion of differing perspectives.
Freedom, Disclosure, and Campaigns
The poet William Stafford has warned that, "If you purify
the pond, the water lilies die." In a similar way, Choice
Three supporters maintain that excessive regulatory efforts to
purify elections of dirty money is wilting democracy. Nothing can
stop political corruption -- which erupts relatively rarely in
America -- but strictly enforcing fuller and faster disclosure of
donations would strongly deter every possible type of campaign
finance abuse, in this view. As it stands now, disclosure rules
are pretty much of a joke across the nation, according to the Center
for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research organization. In fact,
the center reports that most disclosure laws have actually been
designed to thwart public awareness of political gifts.
Democracy's core problem is that, while nearly everyone agrees
election campaigns are important, hardly anyone wants to pay for
them. What is the source of money for this essential democratic
endeavor? Only about 10 percent of Americans contribute time or
money to political campaigns. This pattern is as old as American
history, and candidates from all parties have bankrolled their own
campaigns or turned to a relatively small group of donors.
What keeps the system honest? This pattern of fundraising, with
its lack of populist appeal, stirs up significant public and partisan
debate and media scrutiny -- all of which helps keep the whole
system relatively healthy and honest. So it's a mistake to see this
messy debate as a reason to impose regulations, which can only
throw a monkey wrench into democracy's machinery.
Consider a partisan example: In the 1968 presidential primary
campaign, Republican leaders were quick to criticize U.S. Senator
Eugene J. McCarthy, a Democrat who raised record amounts of money,
much of it from a handful of major donors who gave up to $500,000
each. An historical analysis of fundraising in Law.com, an
Internet publication for lawyers, concluded, "Adjusted for
inflation, the 1968 McCarthy campaign raised more money from private
donors than George W. Bush has to date" -- that is, September
1999 in the presidential primary campaign.
"I couldn't have run for president if it hadn't been for
big-money contributors," the 83-year-old McCarthy told Law.com
in 1999. While he said there is no proof that "big money
corrupts politics," he said there is plenty of evidence that
federal campaign finance regulations have the effect of "putting
limits on who people can vote for." Government's role, he
said, should not be to control political discussion, but should be
restricted to prosecuting corruption and ensuring that the public
knows the source of all political donations.
Misjudging a Problem
Choice Three attributes some of today's problems to a highly
controversial split decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1976. On
one hand, the court struck down limits on campaign spending, finding
that they would infringe on a candidate's free speech right to
spread his message. On the other hand, the majority of justices
broke with logic, in this view, by ruling it was permissible to
put limits on citizens' contributions to candidates. The court
said that such donations were protected, too, but could be limited
for "compelling" reasons, including efforts to prevent
corruption. But Choice Three agrees with Chief Justice Warren
Burger, who dissented from the majority on this point. He wrote
that government should not be allowed to limit citizens' contributions.
He said such limits would have a "chilling effect" on
grassroots political activity and discriminate against many
candidates, especially challengers who often need large contributions
to launch campaigns. In the last 25 years, Justice Burger's gloomy
forecast has been proven accurate, say
Choice Three supporters.
Limits on political donations and free speech are often justified
by concerns that money can be used to buy elections or a legislators'
vote on important matters. But Choice Three notes that many
independent studies have concluded that the primary factors in
determining a legislator's vote are: party affiliation, ideology,
and constituent concerns. Donors, whether they are citizens or
political action committees, generally contribute to favored causes
and candidates who share their views.
Stop Controlling Political Ideas
Democracy is often called a marketplace of ideas, and like any
marketplace, it needs some basic rules to deter fraud. But when
government exerts too much control over the operations of a market
-- whether it's a market for political ideas or airline tickets --
competition is stifled, monopolies develop, and service lags.
Today's over-regulated political marketplace has created comparable
distortions in politics, Choice Three says. The rules are so
complex that candidates almost continually violate technical
provisions and courts are continually having to interpret what they
mean. Supporters say that proposed reforms would only make matters
worse by trying to fix things that aren't broken, such as the
following:
- Political action committees serve a good purpose. These
committees have been around since the 1950s and were encouraged
and formalized by Congress in 1971. At that time Congress saw
them as a way to increase the political influence of citizens,
by allowing them to form organizations to collect small
contributions and disburse large gifts to favored causes and
candidates.
- So-called "soft money" strengthens the democratic
process. In 1974, Congress banned soft money, the unlimited
contributions to political parties. But after the 1976 elections,
it was clear the ban had inadvertently reduced political parties'
ability to buy bumper stickers, hold rallies, advertise, and
conduct many other traditional grassroots activities for
increasing voters' awareness of issues. The ban was repealed
in 1979, for good reason.
- Issue ads are protected political speech. In 1974, Congress
sought to limit the use of advertisements placed by individuals
or organizations to advocate political positions. But the
Supreme Court would not let the law take effect, ruling that
nothing is more central to the right of free speech than the
right to openly and freely advertise political views.
- Not enough money is invested in the democratic process.
Apart from some extraordinarily expensive campaigns, total
campaign spending around the country is quite low, according
to the Cato Institute, a policy research organization in
Washington, D.C. The institute's Peggy Ellis, referring to 1996
elections, wrote that "If you look at every race in the
country, from dogcatcher to President, the amount spent is less
than $10 per eligible voter. As a society, we spend more on
potato chips ... than we do on politics."
What Can Be Done?
Choice Three supporters generally favor the following
measures:
- Strengthen democracy by permitting citizens, political action
committees, and political parties to make unlimited contributions
to candidates and to advertise their positions on any issue or
candidate.
- Strictly enforce a new requirement that all political contributions
be promptly and fully disclosed.
- Crack down on efforts to hide contributions by funneling money
through front-organizations and third parties.
- Require political advertisers to prominently disclose their
identities and true sources of funding in their ads.
- Impose heavy fines and jail sentences on anyone who violates
disclosure laws.
- Repeal all other campaign finance laws, as they distort politics
without creating any benefit. In particular, repeal laws that
require taxpayers to subsidize election campaigns of candidates,
even ones they oppose.
|
In This View
- Campaign finance reforms have backfired, systematically distorting
politics in a far more destructive way than the occasional
bribery scandal ever did. The way to deter corruption in a free
country like ours is not with regulations that gum up the system
but with a single, strictly enforced requirement for prompt
disclosure of all political contributions.
- Restrictions on fundraising promote political gridlock. Because laws
sharply restrict how much citizens can contribute, challengers
can't raise enough money to run competitive races and incumbents
can't be dislodged.
- Campaign finance laws defy compliance and, thus, tarnish politics
as nearly all politicians exploit loopholes to raise the money
they need to communicate with voters in election campaigns.
- Exorbitantly expensive campaigns make headlines, but overall,
political campaigns cost less than Americans spend on potato
chips.
- Americans have a right to free speech, which in this view includes
unlimited freedom to express financial support for candidates.
Limiting a citizen's contribution to $1,000 per candidate per
election is like granting citizens permission to travel, but
allowing them to spend only $1,000 per trip.
- For two centuries, the nation managed quite well with few regulations
on political fundraising. In a recent case before the U.S.
Supreme Court, the Missouri attorney general acknowledged that
there was no evidence of widespread corruption in the days when
contributions were unlimited.
|
In Contrary Views
- Letting the rich write bigger checks, as this choice advocates, is not
likely to reduce Americans' anger about the moneyed interests
getting their way in politics.
- In our democracy all citizens are supposed to have an equal voice and
equal access to their elected representatives. But when politicians
are big-time fund-raisers, wealthy donors gain greater access
and influence. It's time to reform campaign fundraising practices.
- Choice Three argues that better public disclosure of gifts would make
politics cleaner and more honest. Really? Right now politicians
openly accept gifts from special interests with matters pending
before government. Recall one infamous example: the banker Charles
Keating raised large amounts of money for five U.S. Senators in
the late 1980s. They subsequently pressured federal agencies to
allow Keating's federally insured -- and soon-to-be-bankrupt --
savings and loan company to remain open. The senators' lobbying
effort cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
- This choice jeopardizes democracy by freeing the flow of money in
politics without assuring citizens of any better way to hold
elected officials accountable. Voters should have the final say,
by being able to enact and repeal laws, and to recall officials.
- Is money the equivalent of speech, as this choice suggests? Courts
have ruled repeatedly that political contributions represent a
generalized form of support, and are not political speech.
"Money is property; it is not speech," U.S. Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 2000 decision upholding
limits on individual contributions.
|
|
For Further Reading / Publicize All Political Donations,
Don't Regulate Them
- Filip Palda, How Much is Your Vote Worth? The Unfairness of
Campaign Spending Limits (San Francisco, CA; Institute for
Contemporary Studies, 1994).
- Bradley Smith, "Campaign Finance Regulation: Faulty
Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences" (Washington, D.C.:
Cato Institute, 1995). This article can also be found online at
www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa238es.html
- www.aclu.org is the Web site
for the American Civil Liberties Union, an organization dedicated
to protecting citizens' civil liberties. See online article,
"What's Wrong with Pending Legislation That Seeks to Regulate
Issue Advocacy?" at
www.aclu.org/congress/cfr061698a.html
|
|
