Money talks. At least the U.S. Supreme Court seems to think so. In 1976, the high court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that money spent for political purposes is a form of speech covered by the First Amendment.
While restrictions on the amount of donations from different classifications of contributors have since been put in place, some experts and elected officials say there is need for further campaign finance reform because the 1976 court decision has made it easy for groups not officially affiliated with a party to funnel unlimited amounts of cash to either of the two major political parties.
"Money, like water going downhill, finds a way to get to its destination," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University. "You can shut off one avenue but the next one opens up."
Before unlimited fund raising by the two major parties was banned through the McCain-Feingold legislation enacted in 2002, Jillson said so-called "soft money" from unions, corporations and political interest groups was a major player in campaign finance.
"Soft money" no longer exists, but the recent reforms have spawned unforeseen implementations in the form of 527 groups. Named after a section in the U.S. tax code that allows them to operate tax free, the groups are not covered in the McCain-Feingold legislative restrictions and are consequently playing a prominent role in the 2004 elections, Jillson said.
America Coming Together is one of the largest 527 groups, with a budget estimate
d at $135 million, according to Scott Ballo, ACT's chief communications director in Oregon. Although 527 groups like ACT are prohibited from coordinating directly with a political party, Jillson said they can still have considerable influence on political campaigns.
"Most people who are interested in a clean and open electoral process remain worried that interested money is exercising undue influence," Jillson said.
As long as a 527 group remains unaffiliated with a political party, it is free to spend any amount of money it chooses, something Ballo said is necessary because of recent reforms that have limited what parties can do with money.
"We're doing things that the party structure has not been able to do since campaign finance reform went into place," Ballo said.
He added that everything the organization and very important to the campaigns. ACT is active in 17 swing states and is responsible for registering more than 100,000 new voters in Oregon, he said.
"We're taking the rules and using the system as it's set up to do important work," he said. University Political Science Assistant Professor Eric McGhee agreed that 527 groups "play critical roles" in campaigns, adding that many of the groups have existed for years but were not needed by political parties until the 2002 reform.
Now, with a limit on the amount of money parties can spend, the unlimited fundraising abilities of the 527s can play a huge role in campaigns.
Any future reforms are likely to face the same glitches the McCain-Feingold legislation did, McGhee said. He added that money plays such an important role in the outcome of elections that it will always find a way to funnel its way to the intended destination, no matter how strict the reform.
The only type of reform that would work would involve a total overhaul of the current system and the implementation of one based entirely on public finance, as well as severe restrictions on fundraising, McGhee said.
University of Florida Political Science Professor Richard Scher said most attempts at campaign finance reform have been "misguided" and subsequently fail to address the real problems in the system. "Reforms are sideshows," Scher said. "They're not really speaking to where they're most valuable -- money."
Scher is critical of the roles 527 groups have played in this election, blaming them for increasing the "electoral division" in the country, but he added that it was within their right to do so.
"They've just been doing what is permissible; whether it's ethical or not is another matter," Scher said.
In order to halt the influence of outside interest groups, Scher said all organizations should be required to offer "a complete and instant disclosure" of all funds raised and where they're going.
If full disclosure is demanded, 527 groups will be more reluctant to spend money out of fear of public scrutiny for having a political agenda.
"All the roaches will run for the corners," he said.
Scher said political organizations should be subjected to huge tax expenditures. One hundred percent tax expenditures and full-disclosure demands are the only way to ensure that the "unwarranted power and vast amount of resources" of 527 groups is limited, Scher said.
"Tax the daylights out of them," he said.
McGhee said full disclosure and large tax expenditures may seem like good solutions, but the best solution to the current campaign system involves switching to a publicly financed one.
McGhee's idea of a public finance-based system was suggested by Democratic congressional candidate Peter DeFazio as the best way to reform a corrupt system. Because of the 1976 ruling that money is a form of speech, "the only way we can substantially limit expenditures is through public financing."
DeFazio said the majority of his campaign money comes from individual contributors, something McGhee said is not uncommon.
"As much as we talk about corporations influencing the system and so forth, it's really the individual," McGhee said.
According to recent election reports, DeFazio has received $74,354 in individual contributions of $200 or more, $247,826 from Political Action Committees and $4,500 from Indian tribes. Comparatively, DeFazio's opponent, Republican Jim Feldkamp, has received $182,136 in individual contributions of $200 or more, $41,250 from PACs and $34,780 in self-funded contributions.
The most glaring difference in the amount of campaign funds in Oregon is between senatorial candidates Democrat Ron Wyden and Republican Al King. Wyden currently has $3,340,168 compared to King's $11,157, according to recent election reports.
Many candidates will not deny the need for further campaign reform, Scher said, but most do not understand how deeply rooted campaign finance problems are.
Interest groups like the 527s exist because the law allows them to, and they contribute to the political scene because the high court's 1976 ruling said they could, Scher said.
Though 527s may not be wanted, Scher said, "I don't see any way from a constitutional standpoint to get rid of them."
function clearField(el) { if (el.value == el.defaultValue) el.value = ''; } function resetField(el) { if (el.value == '') el.value = el.defaultValue; }
Be the first to comment on this article!