|
 ost
members of the political class welcome any opportunity to sing the
praises of curtailing political speech, especially the necessity
of banning "soft money" donations — the unlimited
donations made to political parties to pay for issue advertising,
voter registration, and voter-mobilization campaigns. But lofty
rhetoric designed to impress suburban soccer moms recedes when it
comes face-to-face with the reality of funding a modern-day political
operation.
A case in point:
The Democratic National Committee recently alleged before the Federal
Election Commission that it had suffered a drop in fundraising as
a result of its decision, following the Sept. 11 attacks, to cancel
eight fundraising events projected to raise $1.65 million.
Although soft
money can be donated in unlimited amounts, there are limits on how
party committees such as the DNC may spend it. Consequently, the
DNC wanted the FEC to suspend regulations that provide a 60-day
window for transferring soft-money funds to its hard-money accounts
in order to give the DNC more time to cover operating expenses (such
as rent) using soft-money donations.
Curiously,
no other party committees made a similar request. Even Common Cause,
the reliable campaign-finance-reform gadfly, objected to the DNC's
shenanigans. Interestingly, in the midst of its financial dry spell
the DNC ignored the rent bill and chose to spend $3.4 million in
September and October supporting Democratic candidates in New Jersey
and Virginia.
Once the money
was spent, the DNC still had non-FEC options. It could borrow funds
from other Democratic party committees, borrow funds from a bank,
or, heavens forbid, tighten its belt, and cut its budget. Instead,
the DNC sought special treatment under the law — just the kind
of campaign-finance high jinks it regularly demonizes as corrupt.
The FEC, an
agency that can normally be counted on to chip away at the First
Amendment, concluded that the principle of equal enforcement and
application of the Federal Election Campaign Act and FEC regulations
is paramount. Campaign regulations must be applied consistently
across political parties and their respective committees. Hence,
the DNC's request was rejected.
The DNC isn't
the only culprit when it comes to favoring one kind of campaign
reform for itself and another for everyone else. Arizona Sen. John
McCain (R.) is a skilled practitioner of this approach to campaign
regulation.
McCain, the
principal backer of campaign-finance reform, is also a loyal backer
of Indian political causes. As a result, McCain is the number-one
recipient of the political donations provided to candidates by the
nation's 550 Indian tribes. In fact, McCain receives twice the amount
given to the second-highest recipient.
Under current
law, a person may donate a maximum of $1,000 to a specific candidate
up to an annual limit of $25,000. This is known as "hard money."
The candidate may use it directly for his own campaign. In May 2000,
the FEC ruled that an Indian tribe may make the current maximum
hard-money donation of $1,000 per candidate to each of the more
than 500 candidates running for federal office, i.e., Indian tribes
can make aggregate annual hard-money contributions in excess of
$500,000.
In April, McCain's
campaign-finance bill passed the Senate and remains in legislative
limbo in the House. However, if a McCain-style campaign-finance
bill is eventually passed, thereby banning soft money, McCain's
favored tribes will possess a huge advantage over other Americans
in exercising their right to political speech.
Curiously,
this discrepancy wasn't resolved before McCain's bill reached the
Senate floor last spring. But the senator's senior adviser on this
issue offers the reassurance that "there may be flaws that
need to be rectified, but they can be handled at a later time."
Let's not hold our collective breath on that one.
With the House
of Representatives just seven signatures short of the magic number
needed to force a vote on campaign-finance reform, both the DNC's
action and McCain's inaction is instructive. They highlight the
double standards characteristic of most efforts to reform campaign
finance. The result of increased constraints on political speech
is never cheaper, fairer, or more honest campaigning. The only result
is more power for the regulators and less freedom for the rest of
us.
|
