Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
The Washington
Post
View Related Topics
June 4, 2000, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. B06
LENGTH: 575 words
HEADLINE: At
Least Some Disinfectant
BODY:
FOR
YEARS, opponents of campaign finance reform have been saying that disclosure is
disinfectant enough. Don't enter the swamp of trying to regulate the raising and
spending of campaign money, they say; just require the prompt reporting of
contributions, and let the voters perform the regulatory function at the polls.
So now the lawyers have found a new crevice in the law that they say
allows the assembling of unlimited amounts of political money without
disclosure, and reformers are saying to the opponents, let's at least pass a
disclosure statute; you've said you're in favor of that. Not really, the answer
is coming back; not even disclosure. Too much fun without it.
The latest
mutation in fundraising involves so-called Section 527 committees, named after a
section of the tax code. Unlike most of the other nonprofit organizations that
hover around the edges of the political and legislative process, Section 527
committees are not confined to "educational" activities or nonpartisan advocacy.
They are free to engage in partisan politics and, indeed, the political parties
themselves are Section 527 organizations. But these new committees pretend not
to be engaged in the kind of political activity that would require them to
register under and conform to even the weak existing campaign finance laws,
which do require disclosure. That's because they carefully do not expressly
endorse particular candidates; rather, they put out issue ads that accomplish
the same thing at one remove. The lawyers thus argue--wrongly, in our view; it's
a perversion of the law--that they have found the perfect haven, a spot from
which committees can operate with near-total disregard for the tax and campaign
finance laws alike.
These committees are not yet the main source of
illicit money going into campaigns. The soft money system, in which the
political parties are used to raise and spend on behalf of candidates money that
the candidates are nominally forbidden by law to raise and spend themselves,
remains much larger. But the Section 527 dodge is gaining ground. If the
politicians can auction themselves off in secret instead of in public, why not?
In the House, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, a Democrat, has introduced a bill to
require disclosure of both contributions and expenditures by Section 527
committees. In the Senate, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman have done the same.
Twice Mr. Doggett has offered the proposal as an amendment to other tax bills in
the Ways and Means Committee, and twice he has been defeated on party-line
votes. He offered it again as an amendment to a telephone tax
bill on the floor, and lost by a narrow 214 to 208. In favor were 202 Democrats
and six Republicans, including Montgomery County's Constance Morella. Against
were 211 Republicans and three Democrats. When the House approved a modest
campaign finance reform bill last year over the objections of the Republican
leadership, Republican whip Tom DeLay joined Rep. John Doolittle in proposing a
disclosure bill as an alternative. Doolitte-Delay was good enough for the
Republicans then; why not still?
Both parties use these Section 527
committees. The failure to disclose is insidious, the ultimate corruption of a
political system in which offices if not the officeholders themselves are
increasingly bought. At least they could vote for sunshine. Or is the truth too
embarrassing for either donors or recipients?
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: June 04, 2000 
