Issue #5, Summer 2007

More Money, More Problems

Any serious campaign finance reform must recognize that money is the mother’s milk of politics. A response to Mark Schmitt.

Did the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), enacted by Congress in 2002, successfully limit the corrupting influence of big money in American politics? And are such anti-corruption laws necessary to have effective systems for public financing of elections? Mark Schmitt believes the answer is “no” to both of these critical questions. In his critique, “Mismatching Funds” [Issue #4], Schmitt holds two basic assumptions with which I disagree. The first is his view that the “modern campaign finance reform movement was born” 10 years ago, and mistakenly focused, at the national level, on enacting anti-corruption regulations instead of public financing of elections. The second is that it is possible to establish a workable public financing system that meets its goals and sustains public support without also having effective regulations to prevent the corruption of our democratic institutions. On the contrary, enacting BCRA to ban soft money and end a $500 million national scandal was not only essential to curbing corruption, but it was also a prerequisite to building public support for fixing the presidential public-financing system and extending public financing to congressional races–goals currently being pursued by the reform movement.

The battle for public financing of elections has always been exceedingly difficult. Among other things, it involves challenging the way private campaign funds are used to exercise power and influence government decisions. It also requires convincing incumbents to vote for legislation that would reduce the enormous financial advantages they have over their challengers. Needless to say, it is not an effort that can be assessed based on a decade’s worth of experiences–as Schmitt would have us believe.

The modern campaign finance reform movement began in 1971–not, as Schmitt asserts, in 1997–and was created and led by John Gardner, the founder of Common Cause. (As a Common Cause lobbyist, I began working for public financing in 1972 and have continued doing so to this day.) This is a critical difference: In moving campaign finance reform’s modern starting date up to 1997, Schmitt ignores numerous battles that were fought in Congress for public financing of elections in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. He also ignores the reasons–important to understanding where we are today–why in 1997 the national reform effort switched its focus to banning soft money in federal elections.

Public financing of elections was at the core of the reform agenda from the modern movement’s earliest days. The Watergate scandals set the stage for the passage of landmark reform legislation in 1974, which included a system of spending limits and full public financing for the presidential general election and matching public funds for the presidential primaries. Congress also came close in 1974 to establishing public financing for congressional races: The Senate passed legislation, by a vote of 53–32, to establish a public financing system for Senate races similar to the presidential system, but the House rejected public financing for its own races by 228–187 and then blocked enactment of public financing for Senate races as well.

During the next two decades, numerous efforts were made to enact public financing for congressional races. But none made it into law–public financing legislation, for example, was blocked in the Senate by a filibuster in 1977 and defeated on the House floor again in 1978. Beginning in 1987, Senate Democrats took the lead in pursuing congressional public financing in various forms and repeatedly mustered Senate majorities for their proposals. Their persistent commitment to the issue was demonstrated by the fact that legislation was considered on the Senate floor in 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. Both the Senate and the House passed campaign finance reform bills in three Congresses in a row, from 1990 to 1994. The legislative efforts were all blocked, however, by a combination of Republican-led minority filibusters, stalling tactics by House Democratic leaders, and a presidential veto. In 1987, for example, Senator David Boren (D-Okla.) and Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) were joined by 50 senators in sponsoring legislation to provide public financing for Senate elections. Despite a record eight cloture votes between June 1987 and February 1988, the bill was killed by a filibuster.

Schmitt incorrectly asserts that in the early 1990s the greatest concern for reform supporters was political action committees (PACs). In fact, the reform movement’s efforts during this period focused on enacting various forms of congressional public financing and on enacting a soft money ban. In 1992, legislation passed Congress and was sent to President George H. W. Bush that provided, for Senate candidates, publicly funded voter-communication vouchers, 50-percent-below-cost TV time, low-cost mailings, and public funds to respond to high-spending opponents and independent expenditures; and for House candidates, public matching funds. The legislation also included a ban on soft money, virtually the same ban that was enacted into law a decade later in BCRA. Bush, however, vetoed the bill.

In June 1993, the Senate passed legislation once again providing Senate candidates with 50-percent-below-cost TV time, low-cost mailings, and public funds to respond to high spending opponents and independent expenditures. In November 1993, the House passed legislation to provide publicly funded voter-communication vouchers for House candidates. House Democratic leaders, however, then killed the reform effort by intentionally delaying going to conference on the bill with the Senate for a year, until it was too late to enact the legislation.

Issue #5, Summer 2007
 

Post a Comment

Name

Email

Comments (you may use HTML tags for style)

Verification

Note: Several minutes will pass while the system is processing and posting your comment. Do not resubmit during this time or your comment will post multiple times.