MONTH IN REVIEW

PROTECTING AGAINST COMPUTER TERRORISTS

Since the U. S. relies much more heavily on computers than any other nation on earth, we are also the most vulnerable to terrorist-style strikes against our computer networks. And this has national security and law enforcement officers gravely concerned.

• Twenty-six years after the Defense Department created the Internet as a means of maintaining vital communications in the event of a nuclear war, that system has instead become a weak link in the nation's defenses.

• Experts say that lax security -- on the Internet or countless private networks -- leaves these systems vulnerable to entry by even moderately skilled hackers.

• And America's international enemies could create chaos here by disabling 911 emergency phone service, commandeering broadcast channels to deliver threats, rerouting trains onto collision courses, wiping out bank records, collapsing power grids, disrupting oil and natural gas pipelines -- a nearly endless list, according to security experts.

• The Defense Information Systems Agency has estimated 250,000 attacks by hackers on the Pentagon's unclassified systems in 1995 -- and 160,000 successful entries.

Two years ago, information from a German hacker led officials of the National Security Information Exchange to plug a security hole that could have been exploited to wipe out the New York Stock Exchange's computerized trading records.

The Clinton administration is expected to announce later this month its plans to secure cyberspace. The plan is expected to contain these elements, among others:

• Formation of an FBI-directed emergency task force -- called the Cyber Security Assurance Group -- to manage any terrorist attack.

• Establishment of a commission composed mainly of national security representatives to deliver within 12 months a national policy on cyberspace security.

On Capitol Hill today, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will hold the second in a series of hearings examining cyberspace security and threats to information systems.

Source: M. J. Zuckerman, "Post-Cold War Hysteria or a National Threat," and "Feds Ready Anti-Terror Cyberteam," both USA Today, June 5, 1996.

FREE MARKET DEMOCRACY

It has been suggested that campaign reform be achieved by relying on complete disclosure of fund sources, rather than gimmicks such as public financing of campaigns and limits on candidate spending.

The theory is similar to the policies by which the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates the stock market. Most government oversight of the markets simply makes sure that publicly traded companies accurately disclose vital information about their finances. The theory is that buyers, given the information they need, are intelligent enough to look out for themselves.

Applying the same philosophy to campaigns, a well-informed electorate -- rather than federal bureaucrats -- should be the judge of whether someone has accepted too much money from a particular interest group or spent too much.

• Disclosure laws would be strengthened or broadened, and penalties for failure to disclose would be ratcheted up.

• A high reporting threshold -- between $25,000 and $50,000 per election cycle -- would be established, so as not to burden benign small-scale advocacy.

• Fund-raising restrictions would be relaxed, since the maximum legal contribution by an individual to a federal candidate -- $1,000 per election -- is now worth only one-third as much today as when it went into effect in 1975.

We cannot outlaw special interest money, reform advocates contend, but we can raise the penalties for accepting dubious contributions via the court of public opinion.

Source: Larry J. Sabato (University of Virginia) and Glenn R. Simpson (Wall Street Journal), "Campaign Reform: A Better Way," Wall Street Journal, June 14, 1996.

CAMPAIGN SPENDING CAPS WOULD FAVOR INCUMBENTS

The Senate has voted not to consider legislation that would impose "voluntary" caps on spending in federal races -- $600,000 for House seats and $2 million to $8.25 million for Senate seats, depending on state population. The aim of the proposed bill was to limit the influence of money on electoral campaigns.

But a report by the nonpartisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that spending limits would hamper challengers more than incumbents:

• Spending limits could prevent less known challengers from getting their message out.

• Gerrymandered districts are more helpful in securing incumbents' reelection than their unlimited spending, and challengers must spend more to overcome that advantage.

• Limiting spending by candidates would drive money into less accountable places, such as independent expenditures outside campaign organizations.

Another study from the University of Chicago Law School compared campaign spending for decades of state and federal legislative races and gubernatorial campaigns to levels of government spending for the relevant offices.

After adjusting for various factors that might affect campaign spending, it found that between 60 and 80 percent of the growth across time in campaign expenditures can be linked to increased government spending.

The amount of campaign spending is an important factor in winning elections, despite the 1974 campaign finance reforms.

• In 1994, 91 percent of incumbents standing for reelection won.

• Real campaign spending has increased by 180 percent since 1976.

• In 1994, two-thirds of winning House challengers were already spending more than the proposed Congressional limit -- an average of $738,117 -- as were 65 percent of winning Senate challengers.

Such groups as the American Conservative Union and the American Civil Liberties Union oppose spending caps, and many scholars think the Supreme Court would strike them down as an unconstitutional limitation on speech.

Sources: Michael Janofsky, "Report Opposes Low Spending Caps," New York Times, June 21, 1996; and Brian Doherty, "Common Causes: Bigger Government Equals More Money Spent On Campaigns," Reason, April 1996, Reason Foundation, 3415 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 400, Los Angeles, CA 90034, (310) 391-2245.