The Musings of a Political Junkie

DECEMBER 16, 1996 -- HOPE SPRINGS ETERNAL

In the aftermath of the almost-victory the Democrats could have enjoyed in the House this past November if not for their outrageously cavalier attitude toward money, it appears that party has "gotten religion" all of a sudden on the campaign finance reform issue. A lot of that "religion" could be quite sincere. They're staring at almost certain losses in the upcoming off-year elections in 1998, and they know that for the moment, in the eyes of the public, campaign finance is their greatest Achilles heel. No wonder then their desperation to inoculate themselves against that issue in advance of the coming bloodbath. Well, they've finally come aboard on this issue, and I, for one, say hurray, no matter what their motives.

Of course, they have scant encouragement from their Republican competitors across the aisle. In fact, the GOP knows good and well that this issue not only can be added to the score of "sleaze" issues with which they hope to weaken Bill Clinton during his second term, but can also be used as a powerful club against the Riders of the Donkey as a whole as well. So when Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic Minority Leader, calls for campaign finance reform as an issue to be accorded the highest priority in the 105th Congress, it is little wonder that we hear Majority Whip Nickles respond as follows:

"It doesn't really do a whole lot of good to talk about changing the law until you find out what's the current status of the law and has the law been broken."(As quoted in the Associated Press, Larry Margasak, December 3rd, 1996)

It doesn't take too much of an imagination to figure out that the Republican preoccupation with discovering violations rather than crafting legislation has to do with the fact that they are betting the Democrats are coming to this issue with hands perceived by the public to be a lot dirtier than their counterparts of the Pachyderm. Consequently, the GOP believes that focussing on campaign finance outrages of a legal rather than a systemic nature stands to benefit the party of Lincoln a lot more than a good government bipartisan approach.

But the good government bipartisan approach has increasing strength politically these days. This has come about through a variety of developments. In my opinion, this growing feeling on the part of the public and some politicians that the political finance system is broken and needs to be repaired or scrapped found its first voice five years ago in the presidential candidacy of liberal Jerry Brown. He called for the abolition of PAC contributions, the limitation of personal contributions to one hundred dollars per person, and for TV time to be made available free to all qualified candidates in order to cut down on the incessant need contemporary American political candidates have for exorbitantly sized financial warchests. After the collapse of Brown's candidacy centrist Ross Perot took up the cry, with virtually identical political reform stands, as outlined in his 1992 campaign book United We Stand. In 1995 and 1996, this cause was joined by the Gang of Five, which included this issue as part of their comprehensive proposed platform. At virtually the same time, two conservative Republicans, Senator John McCain and Representative Linda Smith, also joined the cause, offering what has come to be known as the McCain/Feingold legislation.

All of which just demonstrates that this issue is one that has started to cut across party lines. There are some Democrats, like Dick Gephardt, who were overjoyed to see this issue get buried in '93 and '94 during the 103rd Congress. And there are some Republicans, Congressman Chris Shays being a perfect example, to whom this issue appears absolutely central.

But honesty compels us to concede that for the most part the bipartisan good government approach to this matter finds most of its strongest adherents in the mouths of those would-be fiery reformers in the Democratic Party, while the legal retributive approach remains the province primarily of Republicans.

Does this mean that the latter approach will then prevail in a Congress controlled by Republicans? Will we see aggressive congressional hearings focussed on Democratic legal infractions rather than systemic legislation?

Probably. But I believe there is a glimmer of hope. I believe that the good government approach may yet come out on top. For consider the following quote:

"I join in the proposition that it is time we address the issue of campaign finance reform in this body...So we are trying to take a bipartisan look at it. We have spent entirely too much time in times past as parties trying to figure out what would be to our advantage and our disadvantage, and both parties have done that...I have the simple belief that there is too much money in the system...It takes entirely too much time to raise the millions of dollars it takes to run for political office in this country, time that we ought to be spending on the Nation's business. People are cynical of the system that we now have. After a brief rise in public opinion, it seems, after the last Congress, we are going right back to where Congress has always been in the view of the American people, and that is basically abysmally very low. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both parties raise, that all candidates raise if they have any hope of being successful, and they simply do not think there is no relationship between the huge amounts of money being paid out and the actions that are being taken...I think if we can do something about the overall amounts we will be making real progress...That is one of the reasons why people have less and less faith in their Government...That is not a good system. It is not serving us well."

Would you like to know the 'fiery Democratic reformer' who said those words?