Campaign Finance Reform
Sandy Matsen, President
On March 19, 2001 the McCain-Feingold bill, S.27 will
be coming to the floor of the Senate. This bill will:
· Ban soft money by closing the loophole that
allows unlimited contributions to political parties from
corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.
· Prohibit corporate and union spending on "sham
issue" advocacy that mentions federal candidates within
60 days of an election
· Require full disclosure of spending on sham
issue advocacy and the large individual donors who pay
for them.
Raising the hard money individual limit from $1,000 to
$3,000 per election is being championed by some Senators.
The League of Women Voters supports McCain-Feingold but
is opposed to a raise in the limit on "hard money." Call
Senator Corzine and thank him for supporting the bill,
but tell him the hard money limits should not be raised.
Call Senator Torricelli and ask him to support the
McCain-Feingold bill, S.27 without an increase in hard
money limits.
Below is an op/ed piece provided by LWVUS that
outlines the issues before the Senate in this debate. You
may submit it to your weekly papers.
CLEANING UP CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM
If you've ever tried to clean up a polluted river, you
know the job requires two things: First, get rid of the
rubbish already there. Second, make sure no new rubbish
gets pumped in.
That's the job we face in trying to clean up the
raging stream of money that pollutes our political
process. For the first time in years, we have a fighting
chance to do it. But we have to make sure that, even as
we make the stream cleaner, we don't allow new pollutants
to filter in and render the whole effort meaningless.
The main clean-up bill now before Congress is S.27,
sponsored by Senators John McCain (R AZ) and Russ
Feingold (D WI) -- the "McCain-Feingold bill" for short.
It would do several essential things. First, it would ban
"soft money." That's the unlimited, unregulated money
that corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals
currently give to political parties. About $500 million
in "soft money" was spent in the 1999-2000 election
cycle.
Second, it would regulate the money flowing into
"sham" issue ads. These are the ads run by companies,
unions and individuals that supposedly advocate a point
of view, but really are designed to get people to vote
for or against a particular candidate. The
McCain-Feingold bill would prevent corporate and union
dollars from paying for these ads. When an individual
contributes money for such an ad, the real source of the
money would have to be disclosed.
McCain-Feingold would be a major step forward.
Unfortunately, some on Capitol Hill are trying to pollute
the waters even as this bill -- cleans them up.
Some Senators want to raise the limit on "hard money"
-- cash that goes directly from a contributor to a
candidate's campaign -- from the current $1000 to $3000
per person, per election. It's being proposed under the
guise of a cost-of-living increase. But let's look at
what this proposal would actually do.
Since donors can contribute the maximum in both the
primary and the general election campaigns, this would
triple the amount that a wealthy contributor could give
from $2000 to $6000 per election cycle. (If a spouse also
contributes, the amount a couple could give would rise
from $4000 to $12,000.) A recent study by Public Citizen,
a nonpartisan government watchdog group, estimates that
tripling the hard money limits would put an additional
$391 million into our political campaigns. So, even as
the McCain-Feingold bill is taking $500 million in soft
money out of campaigns, this proposal would put $391
million in hard money back in.
Many experts believe the $1000 limit on hard money is
too high as it is. In Election 2000, fewer than one-tenth
of one percent of Americans -- one person out of a
thousand -- donated the $1000 maximum. Raise that to
$3000, and the fat cats get an even bigger advantage.
Those $3000 checks from big givers will drown out the $25
and $50 contributions from ordinary voters. Candidates
who depend on grass-roots support may decide to stay out
of the contest, since their donors, who couldn't afford
the old limit, certainly can't afford the new. And people
of ordinary means would become even more marginalized and
alienated from American politics.
To see where all this is heading, look at the U.S.
House of Representatives. Last year, it voted 300 to 127
against raising the individual donor's limit from $1000
to $3000. If such an amendment gets attached to
McCain-Feingold in the Senate, it would almost certainly
sink the bill in the House.
That's exactly what the anti-reformers want.
Killing a bill with "friendly" amendments is an old
game in Washington. In campaign finance reform, the
stakes are too high to let that game be played again. For
almost 30 years, the League of Women Voters has been a
leader in the fight for genuine reform. The debate in the
Senate is starting now. Write or phone your Senator and
tell him or her to vote yes to McCain-Feingold, and no to
amendments that would put more hard money into campaigns
through the back door. Let's persuade the Senate to take
this one, small, achievable step toward cleaning up the
way we finance our campaigns -- without introducing new
pollution in the process.
# # #
