ethics news & views

Campaign Finance Reform: mapping the moral terrain

• George W. Bush hits $60 million in campaign funds; Gore trails with $24 million.
• $500 million in "soft money"(1) contributions projected for the 1999-2000 election cycle (double the 1995-1996 cycle.)(2)
• $1.5 billion in total contributions given in 1998 (an off-election year).

What do these numbers mean? What is really at stake in the increased spending in elections? Political pundits such as George Will argue that increases in spending really mean quite little. Increased spending in elections reflect the growing cost of ampifying one's voice to a nation of 270 million citizens. As television costs rise and voters are harder to reach, money is the necessary, and morally neutral, means for effective advocacy.

Yet Will's benign analysis is not the norm in the debate over campaign finance reform. Nor should it be. Key values are at stake in the battle on the hill, and the values extend beyond the usual rhetorical rifts of "free speech" versus "speical interest corruption." I want to turn briefly to some of these concerns, including a discussion of citizen agency and political vocation. Consider each category a lens for ongoing reflection as the presidential election continues to set spending records.

Free Speech

"Free speech" and "rights" language casts a long shadow in the world of democratic ideals, and opponents of finance reform know their advantage. In American political life, one could not use two phrases that pack more political punch. Advocacy groups working for reform have had to work doubly hard to battle the sound-bite power of "money equals free speech." In the United States, no one wants to be anti-First Amendment.

The primary debate on campaign finance reform thus runs between the defenders of "free speech" and those who see the corrupting influence of "special interests" everywhere. In the "free speech" camp, Senators Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott have joined an interesting assortment of lobbying groups, from the National Education Association and the National Right to Life Committee to the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.). McConnell has consistently maintained that any new limits on money donated or spent in the federal election process would be a violation of the First Amendment and the right of free speech. Citing Buckley versus Valeo, McConnell claims that the Supreme Court has clearly established "money equals free speech." The National Right to Life Committee follows, claiming that tight regulation of contributions and issue ads would effectively silence their voice. The "liberal media" would simply ignore their voice in the political process. Interestingly, many labor unions also worry about a similar silencing in the mainstream press.

In the end, the Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of campaign finance reform on a new case. But proponents of reform argue that McConnell has missed the balance even Buckley was trying to strike. They argue the Supreme Court actually showed great concern for the corrupting potential of unlimited contributions. In fact, the Court focuses its decision carefully on banning limits on campaign expenditures, not contributions. Reformers note that McConnell has refused to acknowledge this distinction and uses the "free speech" argument to bolster his own political future, more than to defend the constitution. Nine former A.C.L.U. leaders issued a statement countering the position of McConnell and the current A.C.L.U., arguing that Buckley should be overturned, but "even within the limitations of the Buckley decision, we believe that a significant campaign finance reform is both possible and constitutional." (3)

Special Interests

While not quite as compelling as "free speech," proponents for reform have grasped the populist claim that "special interests" have bought American politicians. Web site postings, small news stories, and press conferences all detail the influx of contributions to parties before key congressional votes. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics details this influence better than anyone and to repeat it all, industry by industry, would be overwhelming. Unfortunately for proponents of reform, this evidence does not produce the outrage and grass-roots activism they desire. Opinion polls show backing for campaign finance reform, yet the movement from opinion to outrage to activism is not happening. Why?

Citizen Agency

The lack of citizen activity on campaign finance reform is a microcosm of declining political activity as a whole in the United States. While the argument about corruption in politics is vital and must be continued, I find the issue of voter apathy or citizen agency as important. Money is a unique force in politics both because of its roots in stratification and also its hollowness as a form of participation.

In terms of stratification, the composite of typical contributions is striking:

• Less than 1% of the entire U.S. population finances candidates for public office.
• The overwhelming majority of financial contributors are wealthy and white.
• The 100 highest contributing zip codes were 82% white and gave $1,463,034 in the 1995-1996 election cycle. In contrast the top 100 people-of-color zip codes gave a total of $6,957.(4)

Contributions are the fastest growing form of political activity in the past two decades. With the professionalization of campaigns, financial contributions are also becoming the central form of citizen participation in electoral politics. This is of particular concern because the volume capacity of money far outpaces any "sweat equity" that less wealthy citizens can contribute to a campaign (time cannot be placed in a bank to draw interest like money can). The playing field is tilting even further away from middle and lower classes in terms of popular participation. As Gwendolyn Patton declares, campaign finance reform has become "the unfinished business of the Voting Rights Movement" and several N.A.A.C.P. chapters have initiated law suits accordingly.

Beyond stratification and its accompanying apathy, even those who can afford to participate via financial contributions are expressing a new form of dissatisfaction. For those participating solely via financial contributions, the social gratifications of politics are not present anymore (working with others, the excitement of politics, and the feeling of making a difference). The growing reliance on financial contributions fuels an apathy not only for thsoe who cannot afford the process, but even for those who can. The face-to-face practices that provide the training ground and solidarity of democratic instincts are fading from the electoral process.(5)

Political Vocation

If dissatisfaction is emerging within the citizenry, politicians themselves also indicate their exhaustion with fundraising. The current campaign financing system sets enormously high demands and exhausting requirements for political leaders. Is the role of fundraising outpacing our understanding of the political vocation? The National Council of Churches (N.C.C.) chose to highlight this issue in recent lobbying and other secular groups and former politicians echo their concerns.

Beginning with the resources of the Protestant Christian heritage, the N.C.C. claims that many elected public officials see their work as a public trust. Politicians serve God by serving the well-being of all people. But when public officials are consumed by constant fundraising, they cannot adequately invest themselves in fulfilling the public leadership role with which they have been entrusted. The N.C.C. and other lobbying groups thus argue that "every sensitivity to politicians has to insist on reform."

From the N.C.C., designing structures that allow people to become what they are called to be is essential. David Skaggs, a retired six-term congressman, bemoans, "We all spend proportionately more money on polling and TV ads than twenty years ago. The legislators are less and less willing to be educators, to cast the tough vote and go back home and explain it....There isn't enough understanding between us of what the job description is - that we've been hired to understand issues and vote as we see best, as opposed to being driven by opinion polls." (6)

What does the political vocation entail? What structures encourage citizen involvement in the political process? Does campaign finance introduce stratification and dissatisfaction that we should be concerned about? Are special interests determining votes and agendas? Does "money equal free speech"?

We could add other questions about human nature and structural temptations, the incivility of current campaigns, and the quality of new candidates. Campaign finance reform has layers of questions about vital political values and moral structures. With the efforts of Bill Bradley and John McCain some of these questions are becoming a mainstream. It could not come at a better time, for we will find it harder to work on other policy and justice issues until we revisit the dynamics of the electoral system itself.

******************************************

(1) Corporations and unions may not contribute to federal candidates under "hard money" rules, and individual contributions are limited. The "soft money" loophole, created by a 1978 F.E.C. ruling, removes these limits by allowing corporate, union, and expanded individual contributions to nonfederal party-building activities." Often these unregulated funds are used for get-out-the-vote drives and issue ads in targeted states.
(2) Center for Responsible Politics.
(3) Elizabeth Drew, The Corruption of American Politics (Secaucus, NJ: Carol Publishing Group, 1999).
(4) Ryan McPherson, et al. Color of Money: Campaign Contributions and Race (Washington, D.C.: Public Campaign, 1999).
(5) Verba, Sidney et al. Voice and Equality (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1995).
(6) Drew, p. 40.

[ Posted by Melissa Snarr at February 1, 2000 03:07 PM | More Opinion articles ]

© 2000-2000 by the Center for Ethics, Emory University. Some rights reserved.