Disclosure Key to Fixing System

Talk about voter fraud--how about the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform proposal? This legislation is governmental hypocrisy at its worst because it promises reform that cannot and will not be delivered.

Forty members of the Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. (VICA) discovered this during their annual business advocacy trek to Washington, D.C. To understand why VICA opposes McCain-Feingold, some history is in order:

The last meaningful campaign finance reform was a response to Watergate. Sleazy political malfeasance--dirty tricks, bugging, break-ins and cash contributions--helped stimulate serious bipartisan reform establishing limits on spending, contributions and the amount wealthy candidates could spend on their own campaigns. The reformers believed they had done a good job and plugged the major campaign loopholes. In fact, they did an excellent job. Even so, their well-intentioned legislation quickly unraveled.

The first blow occurred with the Supreme Court’s 1976 landmark decision, Buckley vs. Valeo, which outlawed campaign-spending limits as a 1st Amendment violation. As important as 1st Amendment rights are, the decision opened the floodgates holding back the demand for money, a demand that has since accelerated geometrically because of the high cost of TV advertising.

The next blow came in 1979, when Congress allowed state and local parties to accept contributions (“soft money”) without having to comply with Federal Election Commission rules. This opened a huge loophole and encouraged soft money to flow in unlimited amounts, including from state and local parties to national candidates. So what is left are the “hard dollar” restrictions that limit individuals to $1,000 per candidate per election and political action committees to $5,000. As a result, legislators are on a constant quest for dollars and have less time for governing.

The FEC, charged with enforcing more than 264 pages of campaign finance rules and regulations, is disastrously overworked, understaffed and underfunded. It cannot possibly do its job. In England, if a campaign irregularity is discovered, the perpetrator loses his or her office. Not so in the United States, where a candidate is merely fined or reprimanded. Here there is a cost benefit in cheating. Otherwise honest candidates must choose between breaking the rules or losing an election.

*

And so we have a system that facilitates cheating, that cannot be regulated and that is not working. McCain-Feingold, offered by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) is more of the same. The legislation would create more regulation, does not call for stiffer penalties and does not provide more funding for the FEC. What does it do? It talks the talk. It allows politicians to pander to voters by passing well-intentioned but feckless legislation. When VICA was in Washington in April, Joan Aikens, then FEC vice chairwoman, told a story about her appearance before a Senate subcommittee considering McCain-Feingold. She was asked, “What will it take to regulate McCain-Feingold?” Her answer: “The Pentagon!”

VICA also was introduced to HR-965, created by U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, (R-Rocklin). This little known but highly innovative legislation would eliminate restrictions on the amounts of money that could be contributed to candidates or parties but would require full, immediate disclosure. Monitoring would be by diligent media and by opponents looking for political ammunition. The public would know who gives how much and could vote accordingly. Now we know only about hard-money contributions, which means little because soft money comprises the bulk of funds raised and spent. Under Doolittle, no contribution of more than $200 could be accepted unless the contributor’s identity were known.

Instead of more regulation, there would be less, and the playing field would be somewhat leveled. At present, a candidate who does not have strong party ties finds it difficult to raise the kind of money required to run an effective campaign.

Doolittle is not a bipartisan piece of legislation and therefore probably will not pass. Too bad. In the meantime, we will witness endless expensive hearings in which both parties point fingers, are outraged and pretend they are accomplishing something.