|
 ome
members of the Congressional Black Caucus have stumbled on a profound
thought, one that has escaped the New York Times and other
advocates of campaign-finance reform: Political advocacy is a good
thing. Therefore, it makes no sense to limit its funding, no matter
what its source. Indeed, from the perspective of the Black Caucus,
soft money should be a great boon.
It, in effect, takes money from rich people and rich interests and
spends it on trying to get black voters to the polls, through advertising
and grassroots efforts. If I'm Charlie Rangel, I couldn't imagine
a better thing for David Geffen to spend his money on.
In the New
York Times on Wednesday Donna Brazile, last seen talking
about dogs keeping black voters from the polls in Florida, tries
to rebut this logic. "As long as we keep big money in the system,"
she writes, "it will control the message…and the politicians,
with big-dollar help for their campaigns."
This is airy blather. The fact is that different interests tend
to back each party, because of the parties' different positions
and ideological dispositions.
So Brazile says that big money "blocks passage of health care reform,"
when in reality some big money — the HMOs — opposes it
and other big money — the trial lawyers — supports it.
It's a wash, with the current iteration of health-care reform —
the patients' bill of rights — likely to pass because it enjoys
majority support with the public.
Brazile also argues that big money "keeps needed government programs
for low- and middle-income Americans from being adequately financed."
This too is nonsense. The course of American social policy, as we
witnessed in the welfare-reform debate, has much more to do with
ideas and the general political climate than with big-money contributions.
And this is the rub: It is ideas that matter much more than how
the various advocates for those ideas are funded. Al Gore benefited
from as much soft money as George W. Bush, but surely Brazile would
argue Gore would have been much better for minorities than Bush.
Soft money had nothing to do with it.
Brazile tries to argue that soft money biases the political process
toward TV advertising, instead of grassroots efforts to turn out
voters. But it is foolish to try to distinguish between these two
types of political advocacy, both of which are about getting the
message out and voters to the polls. Surely, the barrage of TV and
radio advertising attacking George W. Bush in the campaign —
including the infamous NAACP ad about James Byrd — had as much
to do with the heavy black turnout against Bush than anything that
happened on the ground.
Black Caucus members like Albert Wynn want to have as much advocacy
of this sort as possible, even if the funding for it comes from
big interests and fancy L.A. lawyers. Good for them. May Republicans
meet them on the field of battle in a political system that remains
vigorous and free.
|
