|
 his
week the U.S. Senate was locked in fierce debate over whether donations
to candidates should
be limited to either $2,000
or $2,500. To some, such as Senate
Minority leader Tom Daschle, that $500 difference would determine
whether the entire reform package made "a mockery of reform." Yet,
there is no evidence that the limits being debated have anything to
do with preventing corruption. Instead, what limits clearly do is
protect incumbents.
Public-interest groups
and the press keep on telling us that politicians vote in accord
with their donors’ interests. The claim is that the only reason
for donations is to buy influence. There is little doubt that campaign
contributions and voting records often go together. But few mention
that this relationship might simply reflect that donors only support
candidates whose views they share.
Fortunately, there
are cases where we can separate out these two motives. Consider
a retiring politician. He has little reason to honor any “bribes,”
for reelection is no longer an issue. Even if earlier there were
corrupting influences from donations, the politician would now have
freedom to vote according to his own preferences. Therefore, if
contributions are “bribes” to make the politician vote differently
from his beliefs, there ought to be a change in the voting record
when the politician decides to retire.
Yet, this proves not
to be the case. Together with Steve Bronars of the University of
Texas, I have examined the voting records of the 731 congressmen
who held office for at least two terms during the 1975 to 1990 period.
We found that retiring congressmen continued voting the same way
as they did previously, even after accounting for what they do after
their retirement or focusing on their voting after they announce
their retirement. Despite retiring politicians only receiving 15
percent of their preceding term’s political-action-committee contributions,
their voting pattern remains virtually the same: they only alter
their voting pattern on one issue out of every 450 votes.
If anything, these
statistically insignificant changes even move in the wrong direction.
Retiring politicians are slightly more--not less — likely to
favor their former donors. This makes no sense if indeed contributions
had been buying votes.
The voting records
also reveal that politicians are extremely consistent in how they
vote over their entire careers. Those who are the most conservative
or liberal during their first terms are still ranked that way when
they retire. Thus the young politician who does not yet receive
money from a PAC, does not suddenly change when that organization
starts supporting him.
The data thus indicate
that politicians vote according to their beliefs, and supporters
are giving money to candidates who share their beliefs on important
issues. A reputation for sticking to certain values is important
to politicians. This is why political ads often attack policy “flip-flops”
by the opponent — if a politician merely tells people what
they want to hear, voters lack assurance that he will vote for and
push that policy when he no longer faces reelection. Voters instead
trust politicians who show a genuine passion for the issues.
If donations were really
necessary to keep politicians in line, why would individual donors
ever give money to a politician who is running for office for the
last time? If politicians simply took positions to get elected,
why would voters ever elect such a politician who would then be
able to vote anyway that he likes?
Proponents of campaign-finance
reform have managed to claim the mantle of dislodging the entrenched
political establishment. But, in fact, the reverse is true: Allowing
large contributions is instead the key to letting new faces into
politics. Existing federal and state donation expenditure limits
have entrenched incumbents, who can rely on voters’ greater familiarity
with them as well as use their government resources to help them
campaign and generate news coverage.
It is very difficult
for challengers to raise numerous small donations. Incumbents have
an advantage here, as they have had years to put together long mailing
lists as well as making a wide array of contacts. Allowing large
donations would make it easier for newcomers to raise large sum
from a few sources.
For example, Sen. Eugene
McCarthy, nicknamed “Clean Gene,” would — under current restrictive
rules — not have been able to challenge Lyndon Johnson for
the presidency in 1968. He relied on six donors who bucked the party
establishment and almost entirely financed his campaign. McCarthy
raised as much money (after adjusting for inflation) as George W.
Bush has so far in this election, but Bush has had to raise the
money from 170,000 donors.
In another case, George
McGovern was able to continue his 1972 presidential primary campaign
only because of extremely large donations from one person, Stuart
Mott.
The small donations
also complicate things by requiring that fundraising start long
before the race begins. This means that if a candidate falters,
it is virtually impossible for other candidates to enter in at the
last moment.
Donation limits have
reduced the number of candidates running for office; cut in half
the rate at which incumbents are defeated; given wealthy candidates
an advantage, raised independent expenditures; increased corruption
of the political process; as well as led to more “negative” campaigns.
More of the same will follow if we continue the path of stricter
and stricter campaign “reform.”
|
