Campaign finance reform: faulty assumptions and undemocratic consequences

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), Jan, 1998 by Bradley A. Smith

A greater outlay does not necessarily translate into electoral triumph. Having money means having the ability to be heard; it does not mean that voters will like what they hear. In 1994 House of Representative races, for example, 34 Republicans defeated Democratic incumbents, spending on average two-thirds as much as their opponents. In 1996, several Senate candidates won despite being outspent. Republican Michael Huffington spent nearly $30,000,000 of his own money in the 1994 California senatorial race, only to come up empty-handed.

Money is a corrupting influence on the legislature. A substantial majority of those who have studied voting patterns on a systemic basis agree that campaign contributions affect very few votes in the legislature. The primary factors in determining a legislator's votes are party affiliation, ideology, and constituent views and needs. Where contributions and voting patterns intersect, this is largely because donors contribute to candidates believed to favor their positions, not the other way around.

These empirical studies often cut against intuition. Experience and human nature suggest that people are influenced by money, even when it does not go directly into their pockets, but into their campaigns. Yet, there are good reasons why the impact of contributions is not so great. First, people who are attracted to public office generally have strong personal views on issues. Second, there are institutional and political incentives to support party positions. Third, large contributors usually are offset in legislative debate by equally well-financed interests that contribute to a different group of candidates. Large PACs and organizations frequently suffer enormous losses in the legislative process.

Moreover, money is not the only political commodity of value. For instance, the National Rifle Association has a large PAC, but also has nearly 3,000,000 members who focus intently, even solely, on NRA issues in their voting. The NRA's power would seem to come less from dollars than from votes. To the extent that it comes from dollars, that, too, is a function of votes -- i.e., the group's large membership. Groups advocating gun control frequently complain that the NRA outspends them, but rarely mention that the NRA outvotes them as well.

Campaign finance reformers often pose as disinterested citizens, merely seeking "good government." In fact, there is ample evidence that they have targeted certain types of campaign activities closely tied to political agendas reformers oppose. They therefore favor regulation that would tilt the electoral process in favor of preferred candidates, against popular will.

Negative consequences

Campaign finance reform has had several negative consequences, which broadly can be labeled "undemocratic." Reform has entrenched the status quo and made the electoral system less responsive to popular opinion, strengthened the power of elites, favored wealthy individuals, and limited opportunities for "grassroots" political activity.