Campaign reform could return our democracy to its
rightful owners By Nancy Watzman
A law that actually forbids improved fuel efficiency, passed in
the waning days of the 106th Congress, provides one of the most
striking arguments yet for campaign-finance reform. In its 67 words,
Section 320 of Public Law 106-346 prohibits the Department of
Transportation from strengthening fuel-economy standards for light
trucks and sport-utility vehicles. Inserted at the behest of the
automobile industry (which has given $58.4 million to federal
candidates and their parties over the past decade), the provision
prevents the agency from cutting the U.S. contribution of global
warming gases by 240 million tons annually. Though improving fuel
economy is the biggest single action the United States could take to
reduce consumption of fossil fuels, it has run into a wall of money.
Congress has approved Section 320 as part of the Transportation
Department's budget every year since 1995. Only last year, after
intense lobbying by the Sierra Club and increased pressure due to
high gas prices, did Congress agree to ask the National Academy of
Sciences to study the issue-but it continued to prohibit the
Transportation Department from taking any concrete action.
Why is Congress so eager to please the auto industry, and so
reluctant to heed environmentalists' concerns? It could have
something to do with the fact that the auto industry out-contributes
environmental groups by a margin of more than 8 to 1. According to
the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), environmental groups have
given a relatively puny $7 million to candidates and parties since
1990, and that money is from all environmental groups working on a
host of issues, of which fuel economy is just one.
Auto-industry money is a good predictor of congressional
behavior. In October 1999, the 55 senators who voted against
investigating stronger fuel-economy standards received more than
twice as much money from the auto industry, on average, as the 40
senators who voted for it, according to an analysis by Public
Campaign, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization working to reform
campaign-finance laws.
The environmental lobby finds its arguments buried under industry
cash in other areas, too. Since 1990, activists working to end
commercial logging on national forests have been up against timber
industry campaign contributions of nearly $25 million. Those toiling
in the decades-old effort to prevent oil and gas drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must confront the effects of the
$118 million the oil and gas industry gave politicians over the past
decade. And environmentalists who opposed normalizing trade
relations with China (because it could encourage U.S. manufacturers
to move operations there in search of weak environmental standards)
were drowned out by the $85 million spent during the 2000 elections
by members of the Business Roundtable, a lobbying coalition of more
than 200 major U.S. companies that is a vocal supporter of freer
trade with China.
Current campaign-finance laws keep the great majority of
politicians addicted to all this legal tender. In the 2000
elections, winning a seat in the House cost an average of $636,000,
while a Senate seat cost an average of $5.6 million, according to an
analysis by CRP. Overall, the tab for the 2000 elections was more
than $3 billion, the highest in history.
Politicians won't overcome their addiction unless there is an
alternative way to run successful bids for office. Probably the
best-known national campaign-finance reform proposal, by Senators
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would eliminate
the soft-money loophole that allows donors to give unlimited dollars
to political parties and "independent expenditure" campaigns. In
theory, money given to parties is supposed to be used only for
general activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives. In practice,
parties increasingly use this booty to fund political advertisements
that stop just short of directly advocating the election or defeat
of a candidate.
In the last Congress, the House passed a modified soft-money ban
while the McCain-Feingold bill fell victim to a Senate filibuster
led by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Senator Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.). (McConnell, perhaps the Senate's most dedicated
foe of campaign-finance reform, is also one of the GOP's most
successful fundraisers.)
But congressional support for a ban is growing, and McCain has
vowed to fight for his bill this year. He claims to have the 60
votes necessary to stop a Senate filibuster, ensuring that a debate
and a vote will go on. The next hurdle will be fending off crippling
amendments. As in years past, amendments could be introduced to
increase the amount of "hard" money (direct political contributions
already limited and regulated) that political donors can give from
$1,000 per candidate per election to $3,000 or even higher.
Hard money is no less a tool of political influence. All of the
campaign cash collected by the senators voting on Section 320 was
hard money-contributed by political-action committees (PACs) and
individuals. This money comes largely from a select group of wealthy
Americans. Only one-tenth of one percent of the population of the
United States made political contributions of $1,000 or more in the
1996 elections, and four-fifths of all political donors have annual
family incomes exceeding $100,000 a year. Raising hard-money limits
would effectively increase the clout of industry executives.
If Congress passes the McCain-Feingold legislation, the bill
still needs the president's signature. In his campaign, Bush
supported a watered-down version of a soft-money ban, one that would
not restrict the flow of soft money from state party committees or
wealthy individuals. If Bush vetoes the bill, then McCain will need
to use all the public support he gained during his presidential run
to muster two-thirds of the Senate and House to override the
veto.
If McCain overcomes these hurdles, he will have achieved an
enormous victory. But truly comprehensive campaign-finance reform
must completely sever the links between special-interest
contributions and politicians. Clean Money Campaign Reform,
advocated by Public Campaign and supported by the Sierra Club, would
replace the current system with one where candidates who volunteer
to forgo private contributions and accept spending limits would
receive limited public money to run their campaigns.
This kind of reform proved itself in Maine and Arizona in the
2000 elections. One-third of Maine's new legislature-17 of 35 state
senators and 45 of 151 house members-ran successfully under Maine's
clean elections law. To qualify, they had to raise a set number of
$5 contributions, agree to spending limits, and refuse additional
campaign contributions.
Meanwhile, Senator Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) and Representative
John Tierney (D-Mass.) have proposed Clean Money legislation in
Congress. The Tierney bill drew 47 cosponsors in the 106th Congress;
the Wellstone proposal, just one. Not surprisingly, few legislators
are willing to abandon their gravy train; comprehensive campaign
reform will come from public pressure, or not at all.
Up to
Top
Campaign Finance | Mojave Water
Grab | Bold
Strokes | Updates |