A Political Essay by Jeffrey E. Poehlmann
Originally published on 3rdparty.org on December 15, 1998
The controversy over Presidential campaign financing has officially resurfaced. A recent New York Times article(November 29, 1998) predicts candidates will have to raise at least $22 million -- approximately $50,000 per day -- over the next two years. Author Jill Abramson goes on to suggest that loopholes are being sought and utilized by most potential candidates who wish to remain competitive.
"To raise these large unrestricted (soft money) contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions," Abramson writes, "(politicians) are exploiting the less-restrictive political donation regulations at the state level, establishing nonprofit organizations and setting up political action committees."
Such actions undeniably shift the potential for success in favor of candidates with ready access to wealthy benefactors. Without a level playing field, qualified candidates often cannot muster the media presence required to compete in the political arena. Third parties and independents cannot hope to compete financially unless they are themselves capable of funneling private funds through similar means.
The Federal Election Commission is considering a ban on soft money, a reform fueled by an enormous growth in contributions. The Republican Party experienced 144 percent growth and the Democrats 84 percent growth for a total of $173 million in additional funding over the last midterm elections. The FEC action may be too little, too late in attempting to level the playing field of national politics. A ban on soft money goes only a short way toward ensuring equal voice for every voter regarding a financial contribution to his or her candidate of choice.
The trend continues toward direct solicitation by the candidates rather than monies being funneled through the national political parties. Legally established committees with both federal and non-federal accounts are being used to receive large sums of money from individual supporters. Even though current law prohibits donations larger than $1000 to Presidential primary candidates, the non-federal accounts can accept unlimited contributions.
Another loophole tactic, embraced by the likes of Steve Forbes, utilizes nonprofit organizations. Forbes' "Americans for Hope, Growth and Opportunity" is able to raise unrestricted contributions, including at least $100,000 of Forbes' own money and over $13 million from some 140,000 donors. The group claims to support issues over candidates, but those stances are based on Forbes' previous Presidential bid.
Furthermore, money spent through the primaries does not count toward limits imposed on declared candidates who accept federal matching funds, around $45 million in 2000. Once candidacy is declared, affiliations between a politician and his PACs must end and that candidate must begin complying with the $1000 limit of personal contributions. Until that time, however, soft money can be funneled into state-level PACs.
Some states permit unlimited contributions from both individuals and corporations. Wealthy conservatives like former Vice President Dan Quayle, Gary Bauer, Lamar Alexander, Jack Kemp and Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) each have political action committees in Virginia, one of the non-restrictive states. Although some of this Virginia money has been used to back local candidates, most of it has not not been spent in that state.
While there are a few notable candidates who have not formed their own state-level PACs, most of these individuals may not need them. Democrats Al Gore and Bill Bradley have active federal PACs, and Gore has proven himself to be an extremely capable Washington fundraiser. Republican Governor George Bush does not have a PAC at any level, but he does have a solid national fundraising network. Supporters of his former-President father managed to raise $1 million for Bush's last campaign with a fundraising dinner in Washington.
These major loopholes leave the rest of us at a serious disadvantage. Unless the laws change dramatically before the 2004 election it may be all but impossible to compete in a national race without access to these nearly inexhaustible funds. Voters also suffer. The majority of the population is unable to compete financially with the wealthiest of political boosters, who easily ensure that their own special interests receive consideration.
When a race spurns the issues and turns into a media war, active debate that once raged across the political arena is replaced by a barrage of sound bytes, disassociated images and misleading accusations. This is not a healthy way to engage in a changing of the guard, much less a reasonable forum for making decisions upon whom one should vote into office.
We must call for reforms now. Hold our representatives in government responsible at the state and national levels. Demand that corporations are no longer allowed to fuel political special interests. A simple solution would be to allow only eligible voters to donate funds to political groups and individuals.
The question remains whether federal funds should be reserved to help poor voters meet their $1000 limit. Certainly if the argument in favor of contributions has fallen upon freedom of speech, there should be a degree of equity involved. Every American voter should be able to voice the same support of their candidate of choice. Under existing campaign laws, this freedom is exercised primarily by corporations and committees. Precious few individuals seem to matter as their voices are unable to be raised to matching levels.
Other Resources
Interested in discovering more about this topic? Explore these links ...
- Common Cause the Soft Money Laundromat]
- [http://www.campaignfinance.org Campaign Finance Information
Center]
- Unregulated Cash Flows Into Hands of P.A.C.'s for 2000 by Jill Abramson, The New York Times
- By Any Name, It's Still C.A.S.H. by Jill Abramson, The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for contributing your thoughts. Please remember to always be respectful of others. Comments are moderated, so please do not waste time with SPAM or hate speech.