01
Jun
2004
The Reader recently enjoyed the privilege of interviewing the chairperson of the Federal Election Commission, Bradley Smith, who spoke at Augustana College's commencement last week. (See feature story, page 7.)
Smith is renowned for his criticism of campaign-finance regulation, yet he was appointed during a time of much campaign-finance reform. His primary theme renounces regulation as anti-democratic and futile in its efforts to deter political corruption during elections. Smith advocates deregulation, letting the chips fall where they may in a free-market society. His conservative position on the subject frames a singular, albeit compelling, argument: No amount of regulation will prevent politicians from finding and exploiting loopholes to raise money.
The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill (formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) includes amendments proposed in the Shays-Meehan bill. Together the two bills constitute the current campaign-finance law that November's election will answer to.
The major changes to campaign finance are threefold: National parties are banned from raising and spending soft money; individual contribution limits have been raised to double the previous amount; and corporate and union treasury funds cannot be used for commercials that mention a candidate or an issue within 60 days of a general election, and individuals or groups must disclose contributions and expenditures for such commercials. (Corporations and unions can finance such ads through PACs.)
It doesn't take much to find the loophole here. Since political parties aren't allowed to raise or spend money, they must rely on political interest groups, who must raise and spend the money on the parties' behalf, because these groups fall outside the constraints of the new regulations. This makes for lots of new political/special-interest groups, raising money from donors far and wide, with virtually no accountability on how money is spent, except for some fundamental reporting when broadcast commercials are used. The interest groups with the most dough will get the candidates' attention. It is a virtual playground for special interests to further entrench themselves in the political process. Rather than limiting the soft money, the new regulations have offered unlimited potential for raising funds ... where one and/or more have gathered ... and utilizing them anyway they see fit.
The challenge for the parties will be in corralling the funds from the now myriad sources, who have unlimited potential for securing contributions. Under these circumstances, it becomes a "donor beware" market. There is no certainty that all contributions will make their way to the campaigns, but for those that do, the amount of leverage attached to group funds could be substantial, especially where single core issues are at stake. At least with the political parties raising and spending the money, it was coming in and going out from a central source, so to speak.
Smith is renowned for his criticism of campaign-finance regulation, yet he was appointed during a time of much campaign-finance reform. His primary theme renounces regulation as anti-democratic and futile in its efforts to deter political corruption during elections. Smith advocates deregulation, letting the chips fall where they may in a free-market society. His conservative position on the subject frames a singular, albeit compelling, argument: No amount of regulation will prevent politicians from finding and exploiting loopholes to raise money.
The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform bill (formally called the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) includes amendments proposed in the Shays-Meehan bill. Together the two bills constitute the current campaign-finance law that November's election will answer to.
The major changes to campaign finance are threefold: National parties are banned from raising and spending soft money; individual contribution limits have been raised to double the previous amount; and corporate and union treasury funds cannot be used for commercials that mention a candidate or an issue within 60 days of a general election, and individuals or groups must disclose contributions and expenditures for such commercials. (Corporations and unions can finance such ads through PACs.)
It doesn't take much to find the loophole here. Since political parties aren't allowed to raise or spend money, they must rely on political interest groups, who must raise and spend the money on the parties' behalf, because these groups fall outside the constraints of the new regulations. This makes for lots of new political/special-interest groups, raising money from donors far and wide, with virtually no accountability on how money is spent, except for some fundamental reporting when broadcast commercials are used. The interest groups with the most dough will get the candidates' attention. It is a virtual playground for special interests to further entrench themselves in the political process. Rather than limiting the soft money, the new regulations have offered unlimited potential for raising funds ... where one and/or more have gathered ... and utilizing them anyway they see fit.
The challenge for the parties will be in corralling the funds from the now myriad sources, who have unlimited potential for securing contributions. Under these circumstances, it becomes a "donor beware" market. There is no certainty that all contributions will make their way to the campaigns, but for those that do, the amount of leverage attached to group funds could be substantial, especially where single core issues are at stake. At least with the political parties raising and spending the money, it was coming in and going out from a central source, so to speak.
