The Much-Needed Reform That Has Virtually No Lobby : Too many Democrats and Republicans like things the cozy way they are

“Throw the rascals out!” In that immortal, anonymous cry lies the very essence of democracy. The most oppressive of modern tyrannies have, after all, gone through the motions of voting their tyrants in. What has made democracy different has been its ability to vote its own leaders out.

In recent years, however, it has grown steadily more difficult to vote anybody out of our Congress. From 1982 through 1990, incumbents won in almost 2,000 House races, a 96% success rate. The rascals are getting harder and harder to throw. Why?

Money is why. Between Jan. 1, 1989, and Dec. 31, 1990, 406 congressional incumbents raised $88,330,899 from political action committees (PACs). During the same period, 331 challengers raised only $6,898,631. Overall campaign resources in the same year split $240,150,207 for incumbents to only $36,769,534 for challengers. Millions of dollars, amazingly (and dismayingly), go every year to congressional candidates who either are not running or are running unopposed. Obviously, there are those who want to keep the rascals in because they are their rascals.

THE REFORM: Can anything be done about this? Last May, the Senate passed a campaign reform bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) and Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.). Last Monday, the House passed a comparable bill sponsored by Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-Conn.). Either bill, if it became law, would be a significant step back toward functional democracy, a step away from bought-and-sold perpetual incumbency. If the best features of both could be combined in conference and voted into law, the rascals might be in serious trouble. Unfortunately, that outcome is very unlikely.

The Gejdenson bill, as originally drafted, set a voluntary overall limit of $600,000 for a House election campaign and a second cap, also voluntary, of $200,000 on the portion of the $600,000 that could come from PACs. Candidates agreeing to these limits could receive up to $200,000 in funds from the federal government, matching small private contributions to the candidate’s campaign. Funds for the $40-million annual cost that this match would entail were to come from a revision in the current tax-deductibility of PAC wining and dining of the incumbents, currently a $500-million aggregate tax loss.

To these reforms, the Mitchell-Boren bill adds a key curb on so-called “soft money” abuses. Corporations and labor unions are now prevented by federal law from contributing more than $1,000 per election to a given federal candidate. Much larger contributions to state political parties technically escape the federal regulations, however, and the state parties can easily spend their money to aid a federal candidate. The Mitchell-Boren bill would put a stop to this campaign money-laundering.

THE POLITICS: Alas, the rascals needn’t worry. President Bush has declared his opposition to any bill that limits campaign expenditures, and the House bill was passed by a veto-vulnerable 273-156 majority. House Republicans favor reforms that impose no voluntary funding ceiling but merely require funds to be raised in-state or in-district, thus restraining Washington-based PACs but not wealthy local constituents with a PAC-like agenda. As for the Democrats, too many of them are quietly relieved to see the Republicans shoot this one down. After all, more incumbents in both houses are Democrats than are Republicans.

Campaign reform, tragically, is a reform that serves only the public good. No big-time contributor and no PAC wants to minimize the impact of a contribution. No incumbent wants to minimize the incumbency advantage. The Republicans rely on rich individuals more than Democrats do. The Democrats rely on well-financed organizations more than Republicans do.

The President could make make the difference, but he won’t. The rascals, sad to say, are in no real danger at all.