Soft Money, Hard Fight

For more than a year, Times reporters have chronicled a stream of 1996 campaign fund-raising abuses, ethical lapses and possible law violations by both political parties but primarily by the Clinton White House and its political arm, the Democratic National Committee. An article in Sunday’s editions summarized how the Clinton political operation pressed for funds from the Asian American community and in doing so dangerously flirted with foreign business interests anxious to win influence with the American government.

We learned how the Clinton operation shamelessly used the White House as a virtual shakedown parlor, inviting big contributors and potential givers to spend the night in the historic executive residence or attend coffee briefings with President Clinton.

And in Monday’s editions, we got a graphic look at another aspect of the fund-raising saga of the 1996 election: how the quest for money consumed the president’s time and energy and undoubtedly diverted his attention from the nation’s business. The article, by Glenn F. Bunting and documented by Times researcher Janet Lundblad, spun a sorry tale: Clinton attended at least 237 events relating to campaign fund-raising during 1996, reportedly complaining on occasion that he had time for nothing else.

An analysis of Clinton’s schedule for just one week shows he must have devoted a minimum of 20 hours to fund-raising. Leon Panetta, former White House chief of staff, claims that Clinton’s decision-making ability was not impeded, but he acknowledges, “I worried about it.”

What can be done to prevent future abuse at the behest of an insatiable campaign fund-raising beast? It would be fruitless to try to prohibit a president from inviting other Americans to spend a night at the White House. Or to limit the chief executive’s fund-raising efforts to, say, two hours a day. Each president will have to follow his or her own conscience.

It’s worth saying that there is nothing inherently evil about political money. Of the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed in 1995-96, the majority of it was donated by well-intentioned Americans want-ing to support a cause, a political party or a candidate. They were doing what we constantly demand of our fellow citizens: Put your money where your mouth is.

Nor is it bad to have strong political parties. Without them, there would be a chaotic system resting on the shifting sands of personality, lacking any philosophical discipline, continuity or accountability.

What the nation needs to do is close the loopholes in existing law that invite excess and abuse. The major loophole is the one that allows the national parties to solicit unlimited amounts of “soft money”--contributions for so-called party-building efforts such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives. Essentially all of the tainted money from the 1996 campaign falls into this category. And it was spent not on party-building but--in violation of the intent of the law--to tout the election of Bill Clinton or his opponent, Bob Dole.

Soft money would be banned by a reform bill sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.). Republican leaders in both houses stonewalled this measure through much of 1996 but finally agreed to permit a vote on the legislation early in the coming year.

Those who want change in the system must work hard for the McCain-Feingold measure in the next two months. They will get one shot at passage, up or down. And if Congress refuses to reform the current system, then all the pious denouncements of the president’s fund-raising tactics will ring awfully hollow.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Escalating Chase

Amount of so-called soft money raised by each national party in the last three presidential election cycles

Source: Common Cause analysis of Federal Election Commission data