• Campaign finance: Spook spending Campaign finance: Spook spending From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – November 14, 2004 Politicians figured out how to game the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law long before the first ballot was cast in the Nov. 2
• Campaign finance: Spook spending
Campaign finance: Spook spending
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – November 14, 2004
Politicians figured out how to game the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law long before the first ballot was cast in the Nov. 2 election.
Congress passed the 2002 law to outlaw “soft money,” those five- and six-figure contributions that evaded hard money contribution limits and appeared to buy elections. But instead of killing soft money, McCain-Feingold diverted it to shadow political party groups with patriotic names such as America Coming Together, MoveOn.org and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
These 527 groups, named after the IRS code under which they are organized, behaved like the parties had before, flooding the airwaves with nasty ads and organizing get-out-the-vote drives.
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blames the Federal Election Commission for the failure of the law to end soft money. And now he wants Congress to pass a new law that would keep the 527 groups from using soft money.
But politicians and fat cats will find a way around any new campaign finance restrictions. The nation needs to consider more meaningful election reforms. Public financing and free or reduced rates for political ads are two options worth exploring.
Liberal reformers joined with GOP moderates to pass the McCain-Feingold law after a decade of effort. But less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, Democrats discovered they desperately needed the soft money they had just outlawed.
By last March, President George W. Bush was well on his way to a $200 million war chest and was about to drown Sen. John F. Kerry in ads portraying him as a Massachusetts liberal who would endanger national security. All of the Bush campaign money was legal – hard money contributions of $2,000 or less, bundled by Bush “pioneers” into piles of $100,000.
But Mr. Kerry had burned through his hard money during the primary. The only way for Democrats to compete with Mr. Bush was to resurrect soft money and channel it into the 527 groups.
The Democratic 527 groups were run by former party operatives, such as Harold Ickes Jr., who worked in the Clinton White House. They were bankrolled by huge gifts from liberal millionaires: Philanthropist George Soros donated at least $27 million; insurance executive Peter Lewis gave $23 million; Hollywood executive Stephen Bing kicked in $14 million.
But there was a high price to pay. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth used the same fund-raising tactics to attack Mr. Kerry in devastating ads financed by Texas millionaires. By October, Republican 527 groups were outspending their Democratic counterparts.
Mr. McCain’s new proposal to deny soft money to 527 groups raises a problem: If 527 groups can’t use soft money, what about other groups with political agendas, such as the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association? If they can use soft money, they’ll become the new vehicle for dodging the soft money ban. If they can’t, the ability of political associations to be heard during campaigns would be greatly restricted. There’s no debate about the corrosive influence of money in politics. And even the most successful politicians complain that before one campaign has ended they must get on their knees and beg for more for the next contest. But think for a moment about what the 2004 election would have been like without the spending of the 527 groups. Would the presidential campaign have been better with Mr. Bush burying Mr. Kerry in ads last spring? Would the election have been improved if groups such as America Coming Together hadn’t had the money to register voters and get them to the polls in record numbers?
Mr. McCain is dead right that the public financing system for the presidential election needs to be fixed. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry turned down public money in the primary because they knew they would need more than the public allotment to compete.
Congress should take public financing a step further to include races for Congress. Critics of public financing point out that people don’t like to give their tax money to political candidates they disagree with or to perennial ballot gadflies who don’t have a chance to win. But public financing would level the playing field and perhaps draw more reputable candidates. Subsidized political ads for TV also would make it easier for candidates to get their message across without selling their souls to donors.
But don’t hold your breath. Members of Congress aren’t likely to give public money to their challengers, and media companies don’t want to give up the big chunk of advertising cash that the elections bring.
All told, $4 billion was spent on federal elections this year. That’s grotesque on its face, and we can be certain that major contributors will demand to have their chits redeemed. But consider this: It’s only a little more than the nation spent on Halloween. Surely elections are at least as important.
