Campaign dollars and sense

0 Comments | Insight on the News, March 11, 2002 | by Jennifer G. Hickey

At a moment in U.S. history when slaking one's thirst with a frosty tankard of beer, purchasing a new sofa and changing telephone carriers were being draped with the flag and appeals to patriotism, it came as no surprise that the debate on campaign-finance reform was cloaked in ecumenical fervor. On Feb. 13, the day the U.S. House of Representatives began debate on the latest incarnation of campaign-finance reform, the editorial page of the New York Times all but rang with an altar call, declaring: "The Clinton scandals, the endless special-interest legislation of recent years and the Enron abuses should jolt Congress to take stock. This is an hour for soul-searching, not lobbyists' blandishments."

The editorial page of the Washington Post included an equally possessed opinion piece authored by Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a state in which financing limits are set by individual districts. As cosponsor of the Senate version which passed last summer, McCain's cactus populism was expressed with similar ethical symbolism: "In the glaring light of the Enron scandal, Congress faces an historic opportunity to act courageously and unselfishly in America's best interests. We can begin to end the exclusive influence between a privileged few Americans and the guardians of the public trust."

Despite consistently polling as one of the least important issues to voters, the rhetoric of reform and the reality of Enron had been wrapped like a flag around the campaign-finance issue. More importantly, the pressure of the Enron drama (exacerbated by the visage of former Enron chairman Ken Lay invoking his Fifth Amendment rights) had all but excited undecided members into ululations and fits of St. Vitus' dance.

The general axiom of evil -- that soft money inherently is corruptible -- has been oft-repeated without such specifics as who has been purchased for how much by the cloaked special interests. In fact, as the debate was progressing CNN's Bill Press readily admitted to Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), "I do not believe that you are for sale. Okay? I just want to make that clear." The former California Democratic party chief then quickly added: "Don't you have to agree with me, though, the impression out there among the American people because all this soft money [is] floating around ... [is] that you guys are for sale to the lobbyists and to the big corporations?"

Impressions and influence, however, are in the eye of the beholder. As House supporters of legislation cosponsored by Republican Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut and Democrat Rep. Marty Meehan of Massachusetts were fighting off amendments to their measure, a furor over one provision drove a truck through the illusion of reform. On the eve of the vote, election-law specialists called in to review the language of the Shays-Meehan proposal stumbled upon a provision that piqued both interest and ire.

Proponents of Shays-Meehan insisted the provision was intended to permit party committees to use soft money to erase campaign debts. Opponents, on the other hand, warned that the vagueness of the language would allow hard-money debts to be paid off with soft money contributions -- a practice illegal under current law. In addition, and no doubt just by chance, the primary benefit would be to Democrats, who bring in fewer small-dollar donations. In fact, the error was committed by lawyers working for the campaign-reform group Common Cause during the drafting process of a bill affecting to rid the legislative process of special-interest shenanigans.

A longtime proponent of a ban on soft money, Common Cause used telephones in Shays' office to do their lobbying, while a myriad of other interests inhabited the offices of both opponents and proponents.

The measure, passed in the early hours of Feb. 14, has been sent to the Senate, where Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (D-S.D.) said he would move it "the minute we receive it" unlike the energy bill and the three House-passed stimulus packages (the third was passed on Feb. 14). Perhaps some judicial nominees will be given attention by the time the campaign-finance bill reaches the Supreme Court. The speed and route which campaign-finance reform will take is unclear, but GOP Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has pledged to carry the battle to the high court's steps.

"Americans want to get big money out of elections so their voices can be heard, rather than allowing big polluters, like Enron, to buy excessive influence," mewled Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club, after passage of Shays-Meehan. Nor did Pope hesitate to claim that after contributing "thousands of dollars" to George W. Bush's presidential campaign "Enron had a hand in ghostwriting Vice President [Dick] Cheney's energy policy while Americans were shut out of the process." Just what role and influence Enron had is undetermined, but Pope and the Sierra Club have a good grasp on how lobbying in Washington works.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), the Sierra Club donated $51,645 to Democrat candidates for the Senate versus $3,665 to Republican candidates in the 2000 cycle. In the House, the environmental group contributed $305,451 to Democrats and $8,229 to Republicans, including a $3,007 donation to Shays. Although the Sierra Club has not poured "thousands of dollars" of soft money into campaigns, their influence can be seen on the grass-roots level and in various advertising campaigns. (Contrary to reports, "issue ads" still may be aired under the measure in the final days of a campaign so long as they are paid for with hard dollars.)