Shut the Soft Money Gap, Open Others

Even people who take the time to try to understand the rarefied language of campaign finance laws find themselves recoiling in bewilderment at the theological debates over hard money and soft money, PACs and independent expenditure groups and such curiosities as why Vice President Al Gore seems to have run afoul of a 19th century law designed to halt political shakedowns of civil servants--something that no one has accused Gore of doing.

These and other arcane points are currently under debate in the Senate, where the McCain-Feingold bill and its promise of reform face an uncertain future. Yet even in the unlikely event that the bill should pass before Congress adjourns, it will mark just another temporary victory for those hopeful souls who persist in believing that elections and money can be separated.

The history of campaign finance reform is best understood by likening it to efforts to deter the theft of cars. Auto makers and motorists add all kinds of gadgets to automobiles to foil car thieves, but the felons keep coming up with ingenious ways to circumvent them. Even if a car owner were to flatten all of his tires whenever he parked, it’s a cinch that thieves would show up with tanks of compressed air.

So it is with campaign finance reform. Within a few months of the passage of campaign finance reform, someone in a law office within a two-mile radius of the Capitol will have figured out a way around it.

Reforms also have had an embarrassing tendency to create more problems than they solve. The greatly reviled soft money that is one of the targets of the McCain-Feingold bill is itself the product of a 1979 reform of the Federal Election Campaign Act that governs the conduct of congressional and presidential elections. This amendment was designed to clarify what state party organizations could legally do to assist presidential campaigns. It was sold to Congress as a way to infuse life into the flagging fortunes of the Democrats and Republicans by enabling them to receive unlimited amounts of money from sources hitherto off-limits such as corporate and union treasuries, as long as they were used for “party building activities.”

While the well-intentioned framers of the 1979 reform wanted this soft money to go to the parties to provide such modest support for the national ticket as printing up bumper stickers and lawn signs, it has become nothing more than a vast money laundering operation that makes a mockery of the distinction between state and federal elections.

Leaving aside the constitutional arguments that have been made by opponents of McCain-Feingold, mostly notably Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), that the proposed legislation is a violation of the free speech provision of the 1st Amendment and is likely to be thrown out by the Supreme Court, the bill, if enacted, would raise the false hope that the political process has been cleansed.

Politicians will find a way to get their hands on the extravagant amounts of money required to conduct campaigns that rely so heavily on costly media. If they cannot get their names before the electorate by conventional advertising, they will resort to such devices as setting up foundations that can solicit tax-exempt contributions. The funds will then endow schools of public affairs or surgical wings of hospitals that will emblazon the name of their benefactors across their main entrances.

McCain-Feingold, if adopted, also will leave in place the political action committees--themselves the product of an earlier effort to clarify campaign finance regulations--which can contribute as much a $5,000 to the primary campaigns of members of Congress and a like amount in the general election.

Requiring timely reporting of all campaign contributions and giving the Federal Election Commission enough money to enforce disclosure may lack the exquisite intricacy of some reform proposals, but it is enforceable. If candidates allow themselves to be bought and paid for by a single wealthy contributor, a notorious polluter or a producer of kiddie porn, let the donation be placed on public record while the campaign is still being waged and have the recipients deal with the consequences. The tiny minority of Americans who are stirred by the campaign finance debate may not be satisfied with such simplicity, but the vast majority who give only passing notice will be less likely to suffer disillusionment.