CFR Hits PR
Again, missing the real issue.

By Jim Boulet Jr., executive director
February 1, 2002 9:00 a.m.

hatever the question, the answer these days seems to be campaign-finance reform. Campaign-finance reform has become a mystic talisman invoked to expel all manner of demons, both real and imaginary.

Consider USA Today's January 25 linkage of Enron and campaign-finance reform:

Boosted by the Enron financial scandal, a broad overhaul of laws regulating money in politics gained the needed backing Thursday to force action in the House of Representatives... The company has been one of the nation's biggest political donors: It has spread around nearly $6 million since 1989. Backers of new limits on campaign money said Enron succeeded in purchasing access and influence in Washington, even though its donations did not save it from collapse.

Six million dollars is certainly not an inconsequential sum. But, as they say, let's compare.

During the 1999-2000 election cycle, Enron gave $2,441,398 to assorted politicians. During that same 1999-2000 election cycle, public-employee unions donated $12,222,169 — or five times what Enron spent.

In fact, Enron was outspent by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees alone. AFSCME's Political Action Committee spent $2,585,074 in 1999-2000.

What these figures demonstrate is that the more important government is to any group of people, the more determined those people will be to make absolutely certain that their elected officials think well of them.

Impoverished and scandal-ridden Puerto Rico amply demonstrated this lesson in January. Government is the major employer on the island. When nearly a third of the workforce is employed in the public sector (and some mayors have been known to have nearly two dozen relatives on the municipal payroll), a lot of people depend on the political process for their livelihood.

Given this fact of life, when the Statehood Party (NPP in Spanish) ruled the island from 1993-2000, a climate of — in the words of the San Juan Star — "embezzlement and extortion" permeated the administration of former governor Pedro Rossello.

The New York Times summarized the island's many scandals on January 24:

A wave of corruption scandals that has already led to dozens of arrests of officials and police officers crested today with the federal indictment of 17 people, including a former education secretary charged with stealing money for himself and for his political party.

The indictment accuses [Víctor Fajardo, Puerto Rico's education secretary] of engaging in an extortion plot that siphoned federal money not only to himself and his associates, but also to the [New Progressive Party], which favors statehood. It says Mr. Fajardo, who is cooperating with the authorities, asked Education Department contractors for 10 percent of each contract in kickbacks.

Puerto Rico's answer to this scandal? Campaign-finance reform: "Acting U.S. District Attorney Guillermo Gil and Commonwealth Comptroller Manuel Diaz Saldaña urged the legislature and [Commonwealth Party] Gov. Sila Calderon to reform the island's political campaign financing system in order to put an end to corruption."

Now, let's say all campaign contributions were banned. Does anyone really believe that someone interested in ensuring the good will of, say, Senator Robert Torricelli (D., N.J.), won't find some way to show him $53,700 worth of affection?

And there are advocates of campaign-finance reform who wish to silence taxpayers, as they do businesses, while enhancing the power of recipients of government largesse:

[W]hat really is important and scandalous is that the political system itself now is under the dominant influence of business, mainly the very large corporations and financial interests, to the disadvantage of other groups in society with legitimate claims on government [emphasis added].

Americans who wish to reduce corruption in government should concentrate on reducing the size and importance of government — in both the United States and Puerto Rico.