Common Folks, Uncommon Reform

WASHINGTON — A national citizen’s panel ended a series of intense debates over campaign finance reform Tuesday with a surprising call for full government financing of congressional elections, something most politicians believe the public would never tolerate.

Public financing is the centerpiece of a broad call for change issued by 140 private citizens, including 23 from Los Angeles, who were randomly chosen by the League of Women Voters to contemplate the state of U.S. election-financing laws.

But it was not the only principle to run contrary to the conventional wisdom of Washington’s power elite.

Instead of lifting contribution limits to allow for the effects of inflation, as GOP congressional leaders want, participants in the study recommended a ban on unregulated donations to political parties.

They called for free television time for candidates and demanded disclosure reforms to render the relationship between money and politics “more transparent,” saying that current data are “nearly impossible” to comprehend.

“Money has taken over our democracy,” producing “a crisis of confidence in our political process,” the citizen’s group said in a statement.

“We’re damned upset,” noted Joseph Benn, a Newton, Mass., videographer who participated in the league’s “citizen assemblies.”

The group’s conclusions are remarkable for several reasons. Its consensus stands in sharp contrast to the partisan division in Congress, where Republicans unabashedly defend the status quo.

“It isn’t a partisan problem,” said Viet Tran, a USC sophomore. “It’s a bipartisan problem.”

Participants spoke repeatedly and longingly of their aspirations for a better democracy, whereas congressional debates over campaign finance reform have been mired in the arcana of election-financing laws.

Although opinion polls almost uniformly suggest that campaign finance reform ranks near the bottom of most voter concerns, the panel participants vehemently rejected that impression.

“Don’t let the polls fool you. We see money and politics as a critical issue and one we care deeply about,” the statement said.

“The conventional wisdom is this issue is dead. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said Richard C. Harwood, who supervised the assemblies.

More than merely a stunning case of disconnect between Washington and “regular folks,” the dichotomy of views on campaign finance reform offers fresh insights into how reformers might yet prevail, despite recent setbacks in the U.S. Senate.

The assemblies showed that even those who initially had little if any interest in public affairs came to feel passionately about reform.

“That process of education has to go on,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) told the participants.

Election reform experts said the manner in which the issue is framed can turn the tide, as happened in Maine in 1996, when 56% of voters approved a “clean elections” act that provides for public financing.

“We changed the language and the phraseology,” said George Christie, who led that campaign. “ ‘Clean elections’ is a hopeful message. Americans get engaged with big, grand ideas.”

In addition to Los Angeles, participants in the “Money+Politics” project came from Chicago; Seattle; Greeley, Colo.; Newton; and Tallahassee, Fla. They were selected to be demographically representative of their communities and the nation.

From March through July 1996, they met separately in a series of five assemblies, with some sessions lasting as long as five hours. The gatherings were moderated by impartial experts and advised by a panel that included advocates for and against reform.

The sessions were designed by the Harwood Group, a Bethesda, Md., firm that helps public and private-sector entities assess complex issues.

What quickly emerged was “a common ground of trouble and upset” at the current system, said Nancy Krivit, a Tallahassee health worker.

This week, 66 of the participants met again in Washington for three days to bring the group’s work to a close.

“It’s amazing how people from all over the country came pretty much to the same conclusions,” said Denise Beana, a Los Angeles participant.

According to Harwood, the group’s founder and president, some of the participants had never bothered to vote before.

After immersing themselves in the study of money’s role in politics, they acquired “a renewed sense of politics” and became ardent reformers, he said.

Harwood said the participants came to support public financing reluctantly--and only after considering all other options. The citizens said candidates should be given public money only if they agree not to spend other funds and pledge to attend debates and other public forums.

The participants said they believe that most voters would agree with their findings if they realized that they now are effectively paying higher but hidden taxes stemming from special tax breaks given to big donors. Public financing, on the other hand, might cost as little as $10 per taxpayer, they said.

“We are serious about this. [Members of Congress] have been putting off this issue for too long,” said Don Belton, a Tallahassee small businessman.