|
 he
perennial effort to "reform" campaign finance took a big
step forward in the House when the Shays-Meehan bill passed early
Thursday morning. While the bill may still face a filibuster in
the Senate by Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the chances are much better
that new regulations on campaign finance will restrict participation
in the 2003-2004 election cycle.
The sponsors
of these new restrictions claim their bill is a bipartisan effort
to rid Washington of corruption and to return government to the
American people. They thereby appeal to Americans who are genuinely
frustrated and worried about their nation. Unfortunately, Shays-Meehan
is really a sham reform that will harm rather than revive American
democracy.
Campaign-finance
restrictions are presented as a bipartisan reform: Of the four sponsors
of the legislation in the House and the Senate, two are Republicans
and two are Democrats. Bipartisanship appeals to many Americans.
It suggests campaign-finance reform transcends narrow partisan interests
and advances the good of the nation.
The proposed
restrictions are in fact structured to favor one party over the
other.
This week,
18 percent of House Republicans voted for Shays-Meehan in the most
crucial vote. 94 percent of House Democrats voted for the bill.
This suggests that partisan interests, not the public interest,
may have been at stake last night in the voting.
The underlying
realities of campaign finance suggest why the final votes were so
divided by party.
House Democrats
have 70 million reasons to be in favor Shays-Meehan's ban on soft
money. If the status quo in campaign finance were to prevail and
current trends were to persist, the Republican party would raise
$70 million more than the Democrats in soft money in the 2003-4
election cycle. Little wonder last year Rep. Dick Gephardt (D.,
Mo.) said of the Republicans and soft money: "They always raise
more than we do….I don't think it's good for the political
system. I know it's not good for the Democratic party." Ninety-four
percent of House Democrats agreed this week.
This is not
a partisan point. If the Republicans were looking at a $70 million
gap, they too might be thinking up legislative remedies for fundraising
shortfalls. Mere partisan squabbles, however, should not be passed
off as a moral crusade to revive American democracy. Many Americans
hope for a revival of faith in their leaders. The bitter truth about
Shays-Meehan may betray that hope and undermine their faith in the
political system.
Democracy,
like the market, works well when voters have choices provided by
competition. Campaign-finance regulations usually reduce competition,
and Shays-Meehan is no different. Hard money goes overwhelmingly
to incumbents. Parties often use soft money to fund challengers
that have a chance to unseat an incumbent. The Cato Institute just
published a study that shows limits on party contributions similar
to the Shays-Meehan restrictions on soft money have made state elections
less competitive. A ban on soft money means fewer challenges to
incumbents in Congress and fewer choices for Americans at the polls.
Shays-Meehan
also restricts independently financed political ads by business
and labor unions; it also requires extensive disclosure of the funding
for such ads by interest groups. A majority of Congress has decided
to prohibit or to burden criticism of candidates for election when
such advertising matters the most. It's hard to see how this part
of the bill will pass constitutional muster.
The restrictions
on broadcast ads are partisan: They protect the only party represented
in Congress, the Incumbent party. In the election of 2000, many
members of Congress were attacked by television ads paid for by
soft money. Shays-Meehan protects incumbents directly from the discomfort
of similar criticism in 2004. Some of the ads may have been unfair
and false. But so were many newspaper articles and editorials. The
First Amendment does not say Congress may make laws restricting
unfair and false speech. It says, "Congress shall make no law…."
Restrictions
on campaign finance are unlikely to lead to cleaner government or
to diminish the power of special interests. Judging by previous
restrictions on campaign finance, they are more likely to entrench
the incumbent party and to be used as yet another tool for partisan
interests. The American people deserve better.
|
