Just Do It, Congress

Why are congressional leaders so dead set against reforming a 25-year-old federal campaign finance law that’s riddled with loopholes? The official explanation is that reform would violate the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.

That argument has a lofty ring to it. But it rings hollow. The major reason that Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and others oppose reform is that it might begin to equalize political opportunity. The present system favors incumbents, who maintain their hold on office by overwhelming challengers through their ability to raise more money.

A report by Common Cause on the 1998 election tells the story: In the House, 401 incumbents sought reelection, but 343 of them were unopposed or faced opponents who were not financially competitive. All 343 won reelection. Of the 58 incumbents who did face financially competitive challengers--opponents who were able to raise at least half as much money--52 were reelected.

Up to a point, there is a 1st Amendment element in campaign fund-raising. A federal judge overturned California’s latest campaign finance initiative, Proposition 208, because its contribution limits were so restrictive. But the free speech argument goes only so far. The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the $1,000 cap on individual contributions to presidential and congressional candidates.

The debate now awaiting Congress does not even deal with the present contribution limits for candidates. The proposed legislation would ban so-called soft-money contributions to political parties. Presently there is no limit on these contributions. And while the money is supposed to be used for party-building activities only, the law has been skewed so that there is virtually no way to keep the money from being spent directly on candidates. This is the loophole that led to so much campaign spending abuse in the 1996 presidential election campaign.

The House passed a reform bill late last year on a vote of 252 to 179, but it died in the Senate. Now that measure, by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.), is before the House again. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) says he will allow a vote later in the session, but he doesn’t say when. To do it now would disrupt the flow of critical legislation, he says. That is a specious argument. There is perhaps no subject Congress knows better. A brief debate is all that’s needed.

If given a chance, the bill is almost certain to pass the House again. And a majority of senators would support the measure, if ever they were allowed to vote on it. It’s important the House act soon if Senate proponents are to have time to wage a successful campaign.

Without action this year, candidates in 2000 will have a blank check to escalate campaign fund-raising abuse to ever more absurd heights.