Nothing deepens your cynicism quicker than the power of money in
New Mexico is on the verge of joining
those happy few states that have acted to rein in the
extreme influence of corporate money on US politics.
Campaign finance reform can succeed--but only if the pressure stays on.
Senator Corzine speaks from knowledge when he calls for regulatory reform.
In the 39 states that elect appellate judges, politicization of the
bench is growing.
If a definition of news is something that hasn't happened before,
readers of the New York Times may be excused for wondering why
the paper featured a front-page story on June 8 on the travails of a
Senate candidate from Oregon who spends hours a day cold-calling rich
strangers to ask them to contribute to his campaign. There's nothing new
about the terrible, time-consuming need for candidates to curry favor
with the donor class; readers may recall Caleb Rossiter's first-person
account of the numbing effects of fundraising for his 1998 Congressional
The real news story is in Arizona and Maine, where Clean Elections laws
provide public funding for candidates who avoid fat-cat donors. In those
states more than 300 candidates for everything from governor to state
assembly are proving their political worth not by the size of their
campaign war chests but by their ability to attract the requisite number
of $5 contributors to qualify for public money. Participation rates have
nearly doubled compared with 2000, when Clean Elections systems had
their first run. In Arizona more than 80 percent of the statewide
candidates are participating in Clean Elections--including seven of
eight major candidates for governor and nearly half the legislature
contenders. In Maine two gubernatorial candidates, a Republican and a
Green Independent, have been certified for Clean Elections funding,
along with 206 so far of 375 candidates for the state legislature.
In the past few years the determined organizing of dozens of state
coalitions, led by Public Campaign in Washington, has chipped away at
the belief that we'll never get the special-interest money out of
politics. Adding new force to that effort, Senator John McCain, the
country's most prominent campaign reform advocate, recently announced
his support for his home state's Clean Elections system. In ads paid for
by the Arizona Clean Elections Institute, McCain says: "Clean Elections
works well to overcome the influence of special interests. It gives
Arizonans the power to create good government. Keep supporting Clean
McCain's move has a significant local context: Right-wingers and
business interests are trying to undermine his state's pioneering
system. Clint Bolick has set up a state satellite of his conservative
Institute for Justice to go after public financing in the courts, and
former GOP Congressman and gubernatorial candidate Matt Salmon is
attacking Clean Elections as "welfare for politicians" and promising to
get rid of it if he's elected this fall. Activists tied to GOP
fundraisers have floated the idea of a ballot repeal initiative if they
can't get rid of Clean Elections by other means.
Outside Arizona McCain's announcement should end the notion that
Republicans can't stomach public financing. In fact, there is a clear
trend toward greater acceptance among GOP leaders, who are beginning to
understand the rank and file's revulsion at big money's corrupting
power. In recent years, Republican businessmen in Maine, veteran
legislators in Vermont, a sitting governor in Massachusetts (along with
the state party) and a slew of former elected officials from around the
country have expressed their support for public financing, along with a
host of politicians in those three states and Arizona. Now that McCain
has thrown his clout behind the cause, let's hope others will follow.
With McCain-Feingold finally passed, it's time to focus again on public funding.
We're told that this campaign reform is not
The end-all of the sleaziness we've got.
But it must have some worthwhile changes in it
If Tom DeLay and Hastert are agin it.
As the House of Representatives was about to begin debating a modest campaign finance reform bill, former Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was taking the Fifth before the Senate commerce committee. As the disgraced exec sat grim-faced at the witness table, Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the committee, used the nickname George W. Bush once conferred upon Lay, noting that there is "no better example than Kenny Boy of cash-and-carry government." Lay and Enron dumped millions of dollars into the political system--in hard-money contributions to candidates and soft-money donations to political parties--and spent millions more to hire politically wired lobbyists (including Republican Party chairman Marc Racicot) and to snag high-profile opinion leaders (like Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey) as consultants. Executives were coerced to cut campaign checks to Bush and other politicians, Republican and Democrat. The goal was to game the system in Enron's favor--in regulatory agencies, in Congress, in state capitals, in the White House.
Enron, of course, was not unique in this regard. Why else would corporate executives invest millions in candidates and parties? If they're not receiving a return, shareholders should sue. (Enron may well have received favors from federal and state officials in the months and years before the company started collapsing and became too controversial to assist; the various Enron inquiries on Capitol Hill should be digging into this.) And the system seems to be working fine for most donors and the recipients, for the flow of money keeps increasing. In 2001 the two parties bagged $151 million in soft money--the large unlimited contributions given mainly by corporations, unions and millionaires--almost a 50 percent increase over 1999, the last nonelection year. The Republicans out-collected Democrats, $87.8 million to $63.1 million.
The Shays-Meehan bill, at the center of the latest House campaign finance debate, called for something of a ban on soft money for the national parties--a good move. But the legislation, similar to the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate, still contained soft-money loopholes and, just as unfortunate, raised the limits on certain hard-money donations. If Shays-Meehan had been enacted years ago, it would have done little to slow down the Enron racketeers. That's why it's important for the debate to move beyond Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold. The long-term solution must be a system of public finance in which candidates can receive most of their campaign dollars in clean money, that is, funds that come from the no quid/no quo public till rather than the private pockets of the rent-a-politician crowd. The first run of clean-money systems in Maine and Arizona showed that such an alternative can work: There were more contested races, more women and minorities running and a more level playing field. The vast majority of both states' legislators and statewide officials will run "clean" this year, and it looks as though the Massachusetts Supreme Court will force the implementation of that state's clean election law for this year's election. Legislation is advancing in several other states.
In the past few years, the reform debate in Washington has been too modest. The authors of the reform bills deserve credit for pushing against a mighty tide of self-interest, but Enron shows how far special interests will go to rig the system. True reform has to go as far.
The success of Michael Bloomberg's $69 million race for Mayor of New York against Mark Green was widely seen as a setback for campaign finance reform. But the Bloomberg campaign demonstrated the limits of campaign finance reform under the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, not its failure.