Clear Out PACs, Clean Up Congressional Campaigns

Not long after I began serving in the Senate in 1973, I introduced a resolution in the Democratic caucus that called for public financing of all federal elections--presidential, as well as congressional.

The resolution contained little that was new in the concept of public financing--it had been tried before--but in 1973 the timing was important. Watergate was just starting to bubble over. Since no one wanted to be caught in opposition, the resolution eventually passed unanimously-- but not before it was subjected to a most interesting debate.

One of those in opposition to the idea itself, a crusty old northern committee chairman generally identified as a liberal, voiced strong objection to any change in financing campaigns. His reasoning was much the same as that expressed by one of his younger colleagues from the South.

Each argued that he was able to win easily in his state because the Republican candidates in opposition were unable to raise the money necessary to make a race of it. They could see no reason to finance opponents who might not otherwise become candidates.

The most powerful and moving voices in support of the resolution came from two senators known for their less parochial view of politics and power--Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota and Harold Hughes of Iowa. Hughes confided that he would soon be leaving the Senate to become a religious lay worker. His conscience, he said, would no longer allow him to continue in politics because of the way he had been forced to raise money in order to run.

When Humphrey spoke, it was obvious that he too was driven by his conscience. Of all his years in politics, he said, he had never done anything as demeaning and degrading as the way he had to raise money. He was in a high emotional state as he told of how ashamed he was of the things he had to do to extract campaign money from contributors. He spoke of how politicians are treated by those who contribute, of how candidates literally had to sell their souls.

The Congress eventually passed a bill financing presidential elections with public money. But we failed to include congressional elections in the bill. By creating Political Action Committee, or PACs, we also unwittingly created one of the most corrupt and corrupting financing systems in American history. The PAC system is political corruption made legal.

When I ran for the U.S. Senate from South Dakota in 1972, I spent about $425,000 for the general election, of which about $50,000 was the cost of mailing fund-raising appeals. South Dakota has not increased in population since ‘72, but in 1986 each South Dakota Senate candidate is expected to spend from $2 million to $3 million.

The 1984 North Carolina Senate race between Republican incumbent Jesse Helms and Democratic Gov. Jim Hunt absorbed nearly $40 million dollars--a figure which, unless the laws are changed, will soon become the norm.

As I talk both to candidates and to contributors, one learns that very few of them really like the system but each one is living in a kind of regulated law of the jungle. You dare not let the other person outspend you, whether you are a candidate or a contributor. As long as the system exists, those participating will continue to try to raise more and spend more than the opposition.

In the end, all candidates will do what is necessary to win--a fact well understood by special interest contributors. Thus, it becomes a sort of silent bidding process. If your side is able to give more money to a candidate than the other side, you will win the candidate’s loyalty. If the politician’s loyalty dissipates, everyone understands that in most case the campaign money will do just as well by going to his or her opponent. Conversely, if an oil company PAC continues to feed money into a senator’s campaign account, we can safely assume that the senator is voting the way the oil company wants.

Although in place for only a few years, the PAC system has already begun to create the most narrow kind of politics--a government built by a special interest patchwork. The public should not expect their interests to be served by special interest lobbies since they have taken no oath of public service. The ideal of a selfless politician full of altruism breaks down when that politician is faced with an opponent who is well financed by one or more lobbies who are buying insurance for their own legislative interests. The public can expect no benefit from such a parochial financing structure.

Assessing blame for this state of affairs would be easy, but that’s only self-gratification. What is required is that both political leaders and the press generate a massive public protest against special interest financing, and in favor of public financing of congressional elections.