Ben Shapiro Shapiro is a first-year
philosophy student bringing reason to the masses. E-mail him at
[email protected].
Pass the peace-pipe and hail the bipartisanship! To the applause
of the media and the general enjoyment of liberals everywhere, the
McCain-Feingold bill for campaign finance reform is gaining
momentum. Now all it has to do is pass the House, the desk of
President Bush, and the judgment of the Supreme Court.
The bill has passed the Senate! Great news, right? Well,
actually, no.
The McCain-Feingold plan favors incumbents over challengers,
restricts free speech and gives even more power to the media, as
well as failing to deal with governmental corruption at all. The
bill addresses two types of money: hard and soft. Hard money
is the money donated by individuals or political committees
directly to the federal accounts of the national party committees.
Hard money donations cannot be accepted from corporations or
unions.
An individual may give up to $25,000 per calendar year to the
national party’s federal account, and up to $5,000 per year
to the party’s state account.
Illustration by CASEY CROWE/Daily Bruin Soft money is money
donated by unions or corporations through the non-federal accounts
of parties. This money is then spent by national party and state
party committees on projects such as television advertisements,
voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives.
The bill also addresses a hot-button topic: that of issue
ads. Issue ads are ads which can be run by political parties
and other groups, such as unions and corporations, as long as they
do not “expressly advocate” a certain candidate. The
Supreme Court has defined “expressly advocating” as
using words such as “vote for,” “support,”
or “oppose.” “Issue advocacy” is defined as
ads which do not use words which specifically advocate a certain
candidate.
Campaign finance reform, as planned by McCain and Feingold,
would ban all soft money donations and raise the limits on hard
money donations from $25,000 to $30,000 to national parties and
from $5,000 to $10,000 to state parties. Under the bill, issue ads
(specifically television and radio ads) from labor unions and
for-profit organizations would be banned in the last 30 days of a
primary election and 60 days of a general election. These
organizations would also have to disclose their identities were
they to run more than $10,000 worth of issue ads, as well other
information as to donators and amounts. Limitations would also be
imposed on out-of-district contributions to parties.
Before deciding that McCain should be elected governmental deity
and Feingold should be enshrined, consider the holes in this scheme
because in truth, this bill is little style and less substance.
First off, the bill would further entrench incumbents and put
the challengers at financial disadvantage. Â Incumbents have
tax-payer funding for TV studios, “constituent
outreach” (which is actually direct mailing), Web sites,
district offices and terrific name recognition. Of course, it would
have to take more money for a challenger to overcome an incumbent.
But why should incumbents like McCain and Feingold worry about how
reform would favor them?
Historically, campaign finance reform laws have not evened the
tables but tipped them even further. In 1974, Congress passed
the first reform law with any real enforcement mechanism, the
Federal Elections Campaign Act. This set limits on hard money
donations in a stated attempt to “restore confidence in
government,” and lower high costs of campaigning.
The results of the act did the opposite ““ campaign
spending has increased 350 percent since the passage of FECA, House
incumbents have outspent their challengers by a ratio of almost 4
to 1, where before FECA the ratio had been 1.5 to 1, and incumbents
have been reelected so many times that the idea of term limits has
gained great credence. And American opinion today is arguably at an
all-time low in their trust of politicians. There is no history to
suggest that any more governmental regulation would either even the
tables or restore confidence in government.
Secondly, McCain-Feingold infringes upon the First Amendment.
There are two main arguments that support that the bill is
unconstitutional ““ that money is a function of speech, and
that issue ads are also protected by the Constitution.
Banning funding cannot be considered constitutional. Donation of
money to a political group is just a function of free speech. What
is the lawful difference between doing that and holding the march
on Washington? Would it be sensible to say that government would
allow people to hold a march, just as long as they don’t
spend money buying posterboard for signs? By funding parties,
political groups, individuals and even corporations are sanctioning
the message of that party. This must be considered a facet of free
speech.
Banning issue ads in the last 60 days of an election and the
last 30 days of a primary is definitely unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court explicitly allowed issue ads which do not say words
such as “vote for” or “oppose.” Based on
legal precedent, it can be expected that the Supreme Court will
strike down any bill which suppresses issue ads which do not
“expressly advocate.”
In the larger sense, however, even suppression of express ads by
FECA seems unconstitutional. The minor distinction between
“issue advocacy” (which does not use words such as
“vote for,” etc.) and “express advocacy”
(which does) is merely a venue for candidates to legally attack
those who oppose them.
So why does the media love campaign finance reform if it is so
full of holes? The answer is very simple. By giving away the power
of issue ads and contributions, the bill would put elections
squarely in the lap of the media.
The media, which is 80 percent Democrat, could continue to favor
liberal candidates without fear of response from the other side.
Issue ads could not be made to fight the words of the media, and
parties would not have the power to convince voters of their views
because issue ads would be made illegal in the last 60 days of a
general and 30 days of a primary election, the most important time
in any campaign.
Campaign finance reform wouldn’t even help solve the
problem of corrupt politicians. While funding of politicians will
undoubtedly affect their views, they are ultimately accountable at
the ballot box, and if they do something solely for money they will
end up paying with their jobs. Interest groups are not always at
odds with the views of constituents.
The fact is that corrupt politicians will always get their money
one way or another. Laws on campaign finance won’t prevent
people from buying pardons or spending the night in the Lincoln
bedroom. And it will only allow those same corrupt politicians to
get reelected as incumbents.
One of the greatest advocates of the bill is Dick Gephardt,
House Minority Leader, who was quoted as saying, “What we
have here is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of
speech and our desire for a healthy campaign in a healthy
democracy. You can’t have both.”
In Gephardt’s view, this would obviously justify
encroaching upon the First Amendment through unconstitutional
campaign finance reform laws. It is difficult to draw the line
between Gephardt’s “healthy democracy” and George
Orwell’s totalitarian state of “1984:” both of
these restrict personal rights for the sake of a
“healthy” state.
Thomas Jefferson’s idea of democracy sounds much better:
“The basis of our government being the opinion of the people,
the very first object should be to keep that right.”