Opinion Editorial | |
| Wednesday, September 4, 1998 | |
Let's Hear It for the Doolittle PlanPete du PontFormer Governor of Delaware, is Policy Chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis |
Republican Congressman John Doolittle of California and 54 of his House
colleagues (52 Republicans and two Democrats) have the ideal answer to reforming
campaign finance, but their approach is so straightforward that hardly anyone
seems to be paying attention. They have introduced in Congress the Citizen Legislature and Political
Freedom Act (H.R. 965). This act essentially would repeal the limits on
political campaign contributions, require immediate disclosure by candidates
when they do receive contributions (and bar acceptance of any contributions
without proper disclosure), require the Federal Election Commission to post
all the reports on the Internet and stop the use of public money to finance
presidential election campaigns. That's about it. Simple. Clear. Enforceable. Instead, you are more likely to have heard about such campaign finance
reform measures as the one proposed by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell
Feingold (D-WI) or a companion bill proposed by Representatives Christopher
Shays (R-CT) and Martin Meehan (D-MA). These bills, and some others, are
all about "soft money" (as distinguished from "hard money,"
naturally), and the difference between "issue advocacy" (good
use for soft money) and "express advocacy" (bad use). Soft money is money that isn't regulated by the FEC. A lot of it went
to the two major political parties during the last presidential campaign,
and organizations as diverse as the AFL-CIO and the Christian Coalition
raised soft money. Soft money can't be used for direct spending on a campaign,
but it can be used for activities not directly related to the campaign -that
distinction is often blurred. Political parties can use soft money for
activities like voter registration and state and local political activities.
Organizations independent of candidates and political parties can do issue
advertising, but not advertising that explicitly calls for the election
or defeat of a particular candidate. The latter is considered direct campaign
spending, and can be regulated. The McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan bills
would ban soft money contributions to political parties altogether, and
try to make clear the distinction between "issue advocacy," which
is protected by the First Amendment, and "express advocacy," which
is not. It sounds like a law that could keep litigators in business for years.
Complex. Unclear. Practically inviting evasion. Becky Cain, president of the League of Women Voters of the U.S., said
after the 1996 election, "We cannot afford to have the integrity of
the system continually undermined by the disastrous combination of an impotent
Federal Election Commission and laws that allow undisclosed millions to
be funneled into campaigns." One would think Ms. Cain would love the Doolittle proposal - no more
undisclosed millions and an FEC that keeps close tabs on all contributions.
Unfortunately, that appears not to be what most of the reformers have in
mind. Ms. Cain, for example, thinks soft money is fine if it's used "to
strengthen the grassroots involvement through voter registration and get-out-the-vote
activities," but she was appalled to note that so much of the spending
in 1996 "had no other purpose than to change the outcome of elections." To the frustration of many would-be reformers, the Supreme Court keeps
insisting that speaking out on public issues, even in TV commercials, is
free speech. This prompted House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt to propose
a constitutional amendment, saying, "What we have is two important
values in conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns
in a healthy democracy. You can't have both." Now the idea that free speech inhibits democracy may strike one as bizarre,
but the Senate actually debated - and at least had the good sense to reject
overwhelmingly - such an amendment earlier this year. Ms. Cain likes the
constitutional amendment idea too. "It closes loopholes and tightens
the definition of issue advocacy while protecting the First Amendment rights
of groups and individuals to advocate for their beliefs and positions,"
she said. How's that again? We need to encourage political speech, not look for ways to regulate
it. The only reason for any campaign finance laws should be to ensure full
disclosure of the source of political contributions in as visible a way
as possible. Is it too much to hope that Senators McCain and Feingold and
Representatives Shays and Meehan will realize that, too?
# # # # # The National Center for Policy Analysis is a public policy
research institute founded in 1983 and internationally known for its studies
on public policy issues. The NCPA is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, with
an office in Washington, D.C. For more information: Jil Hicks, Dallas, TX 972/386-6272 Home | Support Us | All Issues | Social Security Debate Central | Contact Us |