Bush’s Bucks Could Spark Funding Limits

George W. Bush: Scourge of big-money politics?

Ironic as it might seem, the Texas governor may be giving new impetus to an issue he scarcely mentions--campaign finance reform--simply by raising more money than any presidential candidate. Ever.

The candidates will release their latest fund-raising statements Thursday, with Bush expected to report upward of $52 million in receipts--obliterating records and giving heart to reformers who have long seen their issue molder in obscurity. Already, Bush has said he will sidestep regulations that would otherwise limit his spending in pursuit of the GOP nomination.

“George W. Bush is a walking example of what’s wrong with the current system,” said Eric Schmeltzer of Public Campaign, a nonpartisan reform group. “Bush may do more than any other candidate to promote campaign reform--more even than [John] McCain or [Bill] Bradley,” who have made the issue a centerpiece of their presidential campaigns.

A more sympathetic reading holds that Bush is merely trying to stay competitive with millionaire Steve Forbes, who also plans to spend unlimited sums in pursuit of the GOP nod. (The rest of the presidential field, abiding by reforms established after Watergate, have agreed to curb their spending in return for matching funds, in effect a federal subsidy of their campaigns.)

Regardless, experts agree the generation-old reforms--intended to curtail the role of money in presidential politics--have been “gutted and rendered largely ineffective,” as stated by Anthony Corrado, a Colby College specialist on campaign finance.

Further, repeated surveys show most Americans favor overhauling the existing system to diminish the perceived influence of special interests that heavily finance federal races. “Money breeds contempt and abuse,” said Denny Emanuel, a lawyer in Ottumwa, Iowa, who joined the applause at a recent breakfast when Democrat Bradley called for reining in free-spending political action committees. “It buys votes and legislation.”

It is unclear, however, whether campaign finance reform can shoulder aside such perennial concerns as the economy, Social Security and education to emerge as an issue that matters to more than a few ardent reformers. Dan Schnur, a Republican strategist who believes it can, concedes that “most people don’t respond very emotionally to the phrase ‘campaign finance reform.’ ”

But, he continues, “When you talk to them about special interests and lobbyists taking over their government, that gets them riled up. . . The key is explaining how reform affects the issues that are important to them: You didn’t get tax cuts because of the corporate special interests. You didn’t get school choice because of the union special interests.”

By repeatedly making that kind of case to voters, Arizona Sen. McCain, whom Schnur advises, and former New Jersey Sen. Bradley have already given campaign finance reform its highest profile ever in a presidential contest.

Republican McCain routinely draws some of his strongest applause by condemning the election system as “nothing less than an elaborate influence peddling scheme, in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder.”

Despite strong opposition within his party, McCain is sponsoring legislation that would ban unregulated contributions to political parties--the so-called soft money at the root of the scandal surrounding President Clinton’s reelection. Bradley, who also backs a soft-money ban, has called for reforms including taxpayer-financed congressional campaigns and free TV time for candidates to respond to attack ads.

As the varying prescriptions suggest, there is little consensus on just what constitutes “reform.” Some focus on soft money. Others believe the $1,000 limit on personal contributions--unchanged in two decades--is too low, hobbling candidates with good ideas but a meager fund-raising base. Still others say some type of cap on spending would be the best solution, citing the steamroller effect of Bush’s campaign as a case in point.

Regardless, the two leading reform candidates in the race--Bradley and McCain--are decided underdogs in the fight for their respective party nominations. Neither Bush--with his full-tilt money machine--nor Vice President Al Gore--the Democratic front-runner with links to the soft-money controversy--seem likely champions of reform. Failing a McCain or Bradley upset, that role could fall to the eponymous Reform Party, founded on the premise that Democrats and Republicans are too deeply vested in the status quo to ever shake things up.

There is precedent; in 1992, Reform Party founder Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot pushed concerns over the federal budget deficit to the fore of the campaign, forcing Clinton to address the issue as soon as he took office. “Campaign reform will most certainly be a very important issue” in 2000, said Russ Verney, the Reform Party chairman. “Anyone who runs as the party nominee is first and foremost going to have to endorse our platform, which is very strong on campaign finance reform.”

Many, however, remain skeptical. Ed Goeas, a GOP pollster, said his surveys have found 75% of Americans favor campaign reform--while, at the same time, 76% believe politicians will find a way around any changes they adopt.

More to the point, from a tactical perspective, “I’ve never seen anyone win or lose based on campaign-finance reform, or raising too much money, or even taking too much PAC money,” Goeas said. “But I have seen candidates lose by not having sufficient resources.”