Dec. 2, 2002
Devil is in the Details of Reform Plan
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - If Adam were offered the apple today, he’d still take a bite out of it. Then, he would argue that it was permitted under Paradise rules for keeping the doctor away.
It is one of the delightful traits of our species, and especially Americans, to find and mine loopholes. We’re a law-abiding people, but there is something in our nature that tempts us to undo or exploit the rules that we adopt to protect and improve our lot.
So it is with the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act adopted earlier this year by a Congress eager to show courage in the face of headlines about Enron and other corporate outrages.
The new law took effect November 6th, the day after this year’s mid-term election. One of the law’s major reforms is to reduce the scandalous influence of large campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals.
This "soft money" has been contributed not to candidates directly but to the national political parties for “party-building” purposes like voter registration drives and get out the vote efforts.
Over time, though, these contributions came to be used more for political “issue” ads during election season and less for the party-building purposes for which they were intended. And “soft money” contributions have ballooned since they were first sanctioned in 1978.
Like many laws, the details of the Campaign Reform Act have been left to its governing administrative agency, in this case the Federal Election Commission (FEC), to work out. President Bush signed the law, but he campaigned against it and has packed the FEC with appointees who don’t much like it, either. And it shows.
For example, the law prohibits candidates for Congress and the presidency from soliciting and directing where to send soft money contributions. The FEC looked at this rule and decided that it got in the way of raising money, for Pete’s sake.
So, with an interpretation that would make George Orwell smile, the FEC permitted candidates to "recommend" donations and to "suggest" where the money should go. In the actual words of one commissioner, this is the "wink and a nod" approach to campaign solicitation.
The FEC’s most outlandish interpretation to date strikes at the core of new law’s sanction against soft money contributions to political parties. While observing the law as it applies to the national parties, the FEC allowed the parties to set up "sham party organizations" to receive such money as long as they were established before November 6th – the day the new law took effect.
According to the non-profit Alliance for Better Campaigns of Washington, such groups have been established and their purpose fools no one. Articles in "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post" already have described the new organizations and their missions, according to a complaint filed before the FEC by Common Cause and others.
A Republican Party official quoted in one account admitted that his party’s sham group, the Leadership Forum, was to be the "go-to operation" in House elections after November 6th. The Republican National Congressional Committee has even transferred $1 million to the Forum. The Democratic National Committee’s "go-to" group is called the Democratic State Parties Organization.
Under the law, state parties must disclose the sources of soft money and they cannot spend unlimited amounts on federal elections such as those for Congress or the presidency. Yet, as the complaint states, the Democratic State Parties Organization plans "to spend the large checks it receives on get-out-the-vote efforts and party registration programs in states where such spending is legal."
These subterfuges may seem arcane, but the large sums of money contributed to our political campaigns have consequences that affect all of us. Many North Carolinians, for example, lost money in stocks that have dropped because of corporate scandals.
Corporations such as Enron, now bankrupt, made generous political contributions for favorable regulations and lax oversight by federal regulators. The state Pension Fund, for instance, was hit hard by such corporate failures.
Money buys the influence that begets favors, rewards and access. The Campaign Reform Act can reduce the amount of money in elections, but that’s not going to happen if the FEC continues to play the devil in the details.
Barlow Herget is a writer and former member of the Raleigh City Council.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200