WASHINGTON -- A wit once said the State Department is like tundra in that anything you do to it improves it. That is the way reformers regard existing campaign finance practices. They say this even after two decades of reforms have made matters worse, which proves there is no Everest of evidence too large to be ignored by reformers.
They began 25 years ago by limiting the amount of spending by candidates and the size of "hard money" contributions made directly to candidates. The Supreme Court declared most expenditure limits (those on congressional candidates) to be unconstitutional limits on political speech. However the court incoherently sustained limits on contributions ($1,000 per election, a sum unchanged since 1974, when a Ford Mustang cost $3,621) as necessary "to prevent corruption or the appearance thereof."
This abridged the right of contributors to associate themselves with candidates and to express themselves politically. It also effectively limited the ability of candidates to disseminate their political positions.
Limits on giving have made an artificial scarcity of something amazingly abundant in America -- money. Limits have compelled candidates to spend most of their time raising money. Limits are incentives for candidates to seek maximum bang from each (artificially scarce) buck, through negative advertising. Are reformers happy with their handiwork? Not exactly. Are they chastened? Hardly.
Soft money issues
Responding to the reformers' amendment of the First Amendment, Americans increased their giving of "soft money" to parties for "party-building" activities. These involve voter registration and dissemination of political positions congruent with -- this scandalizes reformers -- the parties' candidates.
The Supreme Court upheld limits on "hard" money contributions in part because of the "soft" money alternative for political expression. But reformers say the "problem" of political participation in the form of soft money contributions is getting "worse," meaning that this participation is increasing.
Common Cause, the reformers' den mother (it favors full taxpayer funding of all federal elections), is getting the vapors because in the 1997-98 election cycle the two parties' national committees raised $193.2 million in soft money, more than double what they raised in the preceding two-year presidential cycle. Think of that: The parties combined raised almost 50 cents a year for every eligible voter.
Worse yet, in the estimation of reformers, citizens are using another, unregulated means of butting in on the nation's political conversation -- "issue advocacy." (Not to be confused with "express advocacy" -- urging votes for a specific candidate -- which government can regulate.)
"Issue advocacy" involves expenditures by groups like the Sierra Club, National Rifle Association and hundreds more. The dreadful (in reformers' eyes) aspect of this is that these groups' spending for political speech is -- are you sitting down? -- independent of government regulation.
Frustrating reformers
Dogged reformers are now preparing another assault on the First Amendment, which they read the way determined sinners read the Ten Commandments, looking for loopholes. For example, 116 House members are sponsoring a bill that would prohibit, among other things, some basic party activities, such as voter registration, within 120 days of a federal election -- just when people are actually somewhat interested in politics. However, courts continue to frustrate reformers.
The Supreme Court will revisit the issue of the constitutionality of limits on contributions to candidates. It will review a Missouri case in which a federal court declared unconstitutional state limits (ranging from $275 to $1,075, depending on the size of the constituency) on contributions.
A federal court has held that Missouri did not demonstrate a "compelling need" for such legislation by producing evidence of real or apparent corruption. The court poured cold water on the idea that no evidence is needed because the appearance of corruption is inherent in large contributions. And the court said that the size of Missouri's limits impede effective advocacy by candidates.
In Colorado, in an earthquake of a ruling, another federal court has declared unconstitutional all limits on "coordinated expenditures" -- hard money contributions from parties to particular candidates.
The bemused court ruled that it could not understand how a party could, with contributions, corrupt its own candidates. The court said, with a simplicity sufficient to penetrate even reformers, that a party's support for candidates who adhere to the party's beliefs is not corruption. The ruling will strengthen parties, which can be mediating institutions between candidates and importuning interests.
Now, if the Colorado ruling is right, there cannot be constitutional limits on giving from parties to candidates. So, how can there be limits on giving by citizens to parties?
Faster than reformers can concoct new restrictions on political freedom, courts are shredding the reformers' prior restrictions. Someone fetch smelling salts for Common Cause.
George F. Will is a syndicated columnist.
Pub Date: 3/07/99