Despite McCain-Feingold, the Money Keeps Rolling In

Despite McCain-Feingold, the Money Keeps Rolling In

President Theodore Roosevelt tried to improve it about a century ago. So did President Harry Truman. Congress took a swing at in 1974. And last year another bill addressing the same issue was signed by a U.S. President. But yet again some are deeming it just an improvement with no home run, even among its febrile creators. It is called campaign finance reform and its flagship Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold), which according to some is nigh to a failure. It is the perennial battle against the use of money from particular groups or citizens, especially corporate and union funds, to influence legislation away from what may be the common good and toward those who provide what is a de facto legal bribe. Often it is a campaign donor's desire to place specific politicians on particular committees. The candidates, ever eager for crucial money to win election, have sought out alternative means not addressed by the recent law to campaign and raise funds--and are doing so at record levels. When one conduit of cash is closed, the candidates simply emphasize other methods to try and satiate their insatiability. And this is nothing new. As BCRA sponsor Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), tells EVOTE.COM, "soft money became campaign money" because (direct) corporate and union money were outlawed during the last century. "Candidates are always looking for ways to circumvent the law," remarked Shays. The Federal Election Commission is "weakening" the law by the way they are writing the BCRA (McCain-Feingold) regulations. Commissioners of the FEC disagree as to whether the commission's regulations are weakening McCain-Feingold. Up until now, Shays says, "the law has worked well," but he warns, "the jury is still out."

Politicians Knew McCain-Feingold Would Not Work
The McCain-Feingold Bill may only have passed because the politicians knew they could circumvent its intent-to end the purchase and sale of politicians, to end political corruption-which continues unabated. Some politicians believed BCRA would later be ruled unconstitutional when they voted in favor of it, thinking it would eventually be struck down by the United States Supreme Court. (Many political observers were staggered recently when the Supreme Court barely upheld key components of BCRA, including its prohibition on some television political advertising, some calling it a blatant stifling of free speech.) Some politicians probably predicted key parts of McCain-Feingold would be nullified, spurring them to vote in favor of passage. This tactic has been long been used by American politicians to obtain approval by the voters. It is a game they continually play at both the state and federal level; passing bills they believe in advance are unconstitutional. To reform the campaign system, those who accept campaign funds must write a bill that stops them from doing exactly what they want to continue doing--to end the very process that helps get them continually re-elected. And since the use of money has already been deemed by the Supreme Court as a crucial part of free speech guaranteed by the constitution, reforming campaigns has been made even more difficult by the right to speak freely, a right politicians ostensibly say they cherish.

 

BCRA Components
Essentially BCRA completely bans soft money to the national political parties. Unlimited contributions had been allowed previously. It also permits a doubling to $2,000 individual contributions to particular campaigns. McCain-Feingold also places restrictions on outside groups from airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or negatively criticize a candidate's position on any issue, but refrains from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate. Groups may not use corporate and union treasury money for these broadcast communications that mention a Federal candidate within 60 days of a general election, or 30 days of a primary, and are targeted at the candidate's electorate. But unions and corporations can still finance these ads through their Political Action Committees. According to Opensecrets.org, President Bush, even without a primary challenger and until recently enjoying high approval ratings, has raised upwards of $84 million, with a predicted stratospheric final total of $200 million. Dean now has $25 million and Kerry $20 million. Campaign contributions levels in this post McCain-Feingold environment could set new highs, with the use of the internet playing a major fund-raising role, especially with Howard Dean. The former Vermont governor raised the bulk of his contributions with a small $77 average contribution. Boyle says Dean's method to raise money is a better way to do it, citing the paucity of extremely large corporate or individual soft-money contributors typical of most influential campaigns of years past. She adds that since the number of contributors is high, with donations relatively low for Dean's campaign, the folks providing the money represent a more diverse electorate in terms of which direction they want the candidate to vote, allowing him relatively more freedom from the donor's wishes. Indeed, candidates that raise large sums in small doses may not even know the reasons why some gave money to them at all, which is not the case for those providing tens of thousands, or millions of greenbacks, as is the case this year with Bush.

 

The Money Keeps Pouring In
Mary Boyle, a spokesperson for Common Cause, a Washington D.C.-based lobbying group that supports reducing campaign donations from special-interests, says reform of the presidential primaries is now needed, as candidates George Bush, Howard Dean and John Kerry have declined matching public campaign funds that would have capped their spending at $45 million. They became the first significant modern presidential candidates to opt out and aim for large amounts of private donations. So without a vote cast, the 2004 election is already remarkable for beginning the collapse of the Watergate-era restraints. We now have an uninhibited money bazaar powered by gilt-edged fundraising parties. Rep. Marty Meehan (D-MA), a BCRA sponsor, says the presidential primary matching fund system is broken. He is proposing campaign financing changes by sponsoring with others a new bill.

The Check Bundlers
According to Common Cause, corporate money is now pouring in to the Bush campaign like water from a Roman aqueduct-exactly what McCain-Feingold was supposed to curb--and what is most disturbing is that it is totally legal. It demonstrates how ineffectual BCRA is. And the name for this legal process, this expedient method of avoiding campaign finance reform laws, is called bundling checks. James H. 'Buck' Harless, founder and chairman of International Industries of Gilbert, West Virginia is a check bundler. Starting in 1999 he began enlisting his mining-industry good-ole-boys to give to the Bush campaign. He gathered the checks together and gave his good friend $355,000. In return Harless received new markets for his coal. Then there is Steven Letbetter, former chief executive officer of Reliant Resources of Houston, Texas. He also bundled checks together worth a total of $213,000 from his corporate buddies and gave it to Bush. Companies like the one he represented were seeking a favorable energy bill. In another case, Frederick L. Webber, former president of the American Chemistry Council of Arlington Virginia, gave Bush $221,000 for favorable legislation. There is also A.R. "Tony" Sanchez, owner of Sanchez Oil & Gas Corporation of Laredo, Texas, who gave $100,000 for Bush's support. Those who show up and deliver large amounts of bundled checks get special treatment, says Boyle of Common Cause. And the deluge is not just for Bush, but he may be leading. For the first six months of this year, the Republican National Committee and House and Senate GOP campaign committees together raised $139 million, while the Democrats gathered $56 million. By comparison, in the same period of the last presidential election cycle, the elephants raised $66 million to the donkeys $38 million � definitely something's been reformed here. Staff members of both Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) are so embarrassed by this situation they refuse to answer any questions about their bill. But listen to how Scott Harshbarger, the former president of Common Cause, refers to McCain-Feingold about the time it became law. According to him, the bill is the second coming of Christ. "By signing McCain-Feingold, President Bush has recognized the need to end the worst abuse in our political system," said Harshbarger. Scott "Mr. Reform" Harshbarger goes on to say, "Americans have won an historic victory to help bring our government back to the people. After years of debate, the Senate has voted resoundingly, 60-40, to end the most corrupting part of our system."

 

It's Not Just the Size of Campaign War Chests
But if you think the buying and selling of politicians stops with simple donations, think again. In this post McCain-Feingold environment, new ways to influence campaigns are now being emphasized. Think of the number 527, as in the sometimes obscure tax-exempt groups known by an Internal Revenue Service code as 527 committees. These 527s are allowed huge campaign reporting advantages. They are reaping an increasing fortune in political cash even with the ban on certain interest-group ads days before elections. Some experts such as Chris Shays say that soft money that would have flowed to political parties now replete the bank accounts of 527s or 501s. These include 527s such as the labor-supported Partnership for America's Families and the pharmaceutical-industry backed United Seniors Association. Democrat investor George Soros has pledged to raise $10 million for one such group determined to defeat George Bush's re-election bid. And tracking the sources and uses of 527 money is quite difficult. "Due to their unique legal status, 527 committees are almost totally free from fund-raising restrictions while still being able to engage in just about any election-related activity short of contributing to federal candidates," states the Washington D.C.- based Center for Public Integrity in a July report. Upwards of $430 million have been spent by 527s during the past three years. Just 22 of the groups raised upwards of $3.3 million within the first few months of 2003. Among the more famous 527 groups include Emily's List of Washington D.C. which promotes pro-abortion Democratic women candidates and the Republican and Democratic governors associations. Four presidential candidates, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO), Sens. John Edwards (D-NC), Bob Graham (D-FL), and John Kerry (D-MA) all maintain 527 committees. Kerry's Citizen Soldier Fund gave upwards of $256,000 to party groups and candidates in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, all early presidential primary battlegrounds. And the tax-exempt pro-Republican Committee for Justice has run television commercials attacking Edwards. Part of its money to pay for the ads was raised at the home of George Bush number one. These self-described "independent" organizations from both sides of the political aisle are stepping in to fill the vacuum from the reduction of soft-money going to the national political parties. Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) has called the growth of the 527s "the greatest threat to the federal election process we have ever seen."

Conventions are Involved Too
And Shays says soft money is flowing into next year's presidential-nominating conventions in Boston and New York too, yet another method to avoid McCain-Feingold regulations. Corporations and well-heeled donors are allowed to write million dollar checks to defray the expenses of the conventions; or should I call them wine-fueled propaganda parties. Organizers are offering 'sponsorships' to businesses with a $1 million asking price for one in particular. A donation of $100,000 to Boston's gets you a breakfast with the nominee and "a chance to help shape the national political agenda." The Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University in Washington D.C. estimates that upwards of $64 million will be contributed to Boston's convention. U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has taken a particular interest in raising money for his hometown convention.

Sanctimonious Reformers?
Even the 'champions' of reform are doing an end-run around the new laws. The President of Common Cause, Chellie Pingree, is facing allegations that she violated federal election laws in her Democratic race for the US Senate last year. In her unsuccessful bid to unseat Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Pingree invited donors to circumvent the limits on campaign contributions. She is the target of an FEC audit, and election law specialists say at least one of her solicitations was illegal. Even Rep. Marty Meehan, a vehement supporter of campaign finance reform, had more than $1.8 million stashed away in his campaign war chest as of June 30, putting him at number six of all congressional incumbents with the most cash available.



[John Pike is a veteran journalist based in Boston. His articles have appeared in numerous magazines, newspapers and web sites, including the Boston Globe, Reason Magazine and Insight Magazine. He is now trying to figure out the best way to give as much money as possible to his favorite candidate so he can obtain a lucrative government job. ]