The Gaggers and Gag-making: Hypocrisy among the campaign-finance reformers

National Review, March 11, 2002 by Bradley A. Smith

Beyond that, the bill will probably strengthen special interests, benefit incumbents, and harm grassroots politics. The limits on soft- money contributions mean that corporations and unions may be pressured to do more independent spending to help their legislative allies. This will give these interests more control over the process, and will reduce the historical role of parties in brokering diverse and often competing interests. The limits on issue ads in the 60 days before an election will mean that such ads will run earlier, making campaigns longer and putting a greater premium on early fundraising. This will benefit incumbents, even as it requires them to spend more time raising funds. True grassroots politics -- spontaneous political activity by individuals and groups -- suffers from regulation and has been on the decline ever since the Federal Election Campaign Act was first passed in 1971. The added complexity of this bill will probably kill off such activity altogether. Indeed, Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason says that the incredible complexity of the bill is likely to lead to "invidious enforcement, singling out disfavored groups or causes" and "subjecting regulated groups to harassment by political opponents."

However, the giant foundations that have financed the drive for reform will remain untouched. So will the recipients of their largesse, such as Democracy 21 and the Center for Responsive Politics, and the lobbyists of Common Cause. Big-business lobbyists also emerge unscathed -- indeed, corporations may devote more resources to lobbying. But groups that rely less on lobbying and more on campaign support to candidates, grassroots organizing, and issue ads to rally public support will suffer.

But that, too, is a common Washington story.