Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review March 25, 2002 / 12 Nisan 5762

Philip Terzian

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Shut up and reform | For those of us skeptical about campaign finance "reform," these are comforting times. Nearly everyone in the nation's capital is impressed that the House and Senate passed a campaign finance "reform" bill, which the President will sign. But nearly no one, including the President, believes the measure as a whole will pass constitutional muster in the courts. This is cynicism masquerading as civic virtue.

As everybody knows, the basic element of the Shays/Meehan/McCain/Feingold measure is a ban on unregulated soft money; that is, cash contributed to parties which the parties, in turn, earmark for campaign expenses. The besetting sin of soft money has been that it enables labor unions, corporations, public policy organizations and other interested entities to circumvent regulations limiting the amount of cash anyone or anything can spend on specific campaigns. Thus, while rich executives or wealthy trial lawyers are limited to contributing $1,000 per candidate ($2,000 after "reform" takes effect) they or their affiliated organizations can endow the national parties as they see fit.

Some opponents of "reform" have argued that a ban on soft money will destroy the two major parties, which is surely an overstatement. It will certainly make fund-raising more difficult for the national committees, but only in the short term. With "reform," the Republican skill at raising hard money will put the Democrats at a temporary disadvantage. In the fullness of time, however, both parties will adapt to new circumstances. They always do. All the aspects of modern political fund-raising that so disturb reformers -- soft money, political action committees (PACs), etc. -- are creatures of the last great wave of campaign finance "reform," enacted in the post-Watergate 1970s.

This latest specimen of campaign finance "reform" is similarly blessed with loopholes which, if scrupulously observed and sanctioned by the Federal Elections Commission, should keep the spigots unclogged. Unions and trade associations will now contribute to state parties instead of national committees, for example, and accomplish their main objectives. It could hardly be otherwise. For the fact is that money is what makes politics vital, keeps parties alive, underwrites campaigns, promotes ideas and allows ordinary citizens -- alone or in groups -- to influence the political process.

Is this a bad thing? The received wisdom is that the political process is groaning under great mountains of cash, and where finance is concerned, corporate America enjoys an unfair advantage. The evidence, however, is decidedly mixed. A big, long, complicated, media-driven presidential campaign costs less than Hewlett-Packard will spend to merge with Compaq.

And as for corporate clout, the millions of dollars spent by Enron on selected political candidates did nothing to prevent the Bush administration from shutting the door in its face when bankruptcy loomed. Yes, money can purchase access for environmental lobbies, unions and chemical manufacturers, but it hardly guarantees success. Moreover, Congress persists in passing laws that favor segments of society (welfare moms, etc.) devoid of corporate benefactors.

The truth is that money is not only ubiquitous in politics, it is essential and, on the whole, beneficial. It enables interested people to band together to influence public policy, it allows candidates to challenge incumbents, it counteracts false claims or disinformation campaigns, it supports a party system that insures against political anarchy. You can argue that the problem of American politics is not too much money but not enough, and what money there may be is overregulated by "reform" which is largely designed to protect people in office. Given a choice between unlimited amounts of private money and full disclosure, or a political process administered by federal agencies and financed by public revenue, most Americans would prefer to keep the government at a distance.

Anyone who doubts that campaign finance "reform" is, at heart, an incumbent protection measure need only consider its most egregious element: A ban on political issue advertising within 60 days of federal elections. It is difficult to see how any court could sustain such a clear violation of the right of citizens to express their political views in public: The Constitution is comfortably explicit that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." But if you're a senator or a member of the House of Representatives, it's not hard to understand the attraction of "reform" that criminalizes dissent, or bans public criticism of your record or position. And the only thing uglier than congressional censorship is media support for stifling free speech. Banning issue advertisements helps incumbents stay in office, and enhances the power of the press to control debate.

Newspapers and television are important features of democracy, but they don't deserve a federally-sanctioned monopoly on opinion.

JWR contributor Philip Terzian is associate editor of The Providence Journal. Comment by clicking here.


Philip Terzian Archives

© 2001, The Providence Journal