Civil warrior

John McCain gives glamour to the battle for campaign-finance reform, but foot soldiers like John Bonifaz are doing the dirty work.

text and photos by Ben Geman

JOHN BONIFAZ: "There are not supposed to be people who, with all their money and power... have more influence. That's not democracy. That's plutocracy."

John Bonifaz Has large glasses and a mop of thick, dark hair topping his slight frame. Partial to the casual, baggy clothes of a graduate student, the 34-year-old could pass for someone a decade younger. It's not obvious from his appearance, but Bonifaz, the founder and head of the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute, is a key player in the debate over the role of money in politics. Though reformers such as US Senator John McCain may grab the headlines, it's people like Bonifaz who are busy implementing a legal strategy that may radically change how American elections are funded.

Right now, part of that strategy is unfolding in a setting that's as low-profile as Bonifaz himself: the federal courthouse in Burlington, Vermont. That state's Republican Party, pro-life advocates, and the Vermont American Civil Liberties Union have filed suit against the state to overturn Vermont's tough "clean elections" law. Passed in 1997, the law sets new limits on campaign contributions, creates public funding for the governor's and lieutenant governor's races, and sets spending caps in all statewide and state legislative races. Spending in the gubernatorial race, for instance, is capped at $300,000 for challengers and $255,000 for incumbents -- even if a candidate is funding a campaign with private money. The law also creates new regulations for interest-group spending on behalf of candidates, which is one of the things the right-to-life advocates are upset about.

Opponents of the clean-elections law say the spending limits violate candidates' First Amendment rights to free speech. Arguments before Judge William K. Sessions III ended in late May, and a ruling could come this month. Regardless of what Sessions decides, the losing side is likely to appeal, which could bring the issue of campaign finance one step closer to an airing before the Supreme Court. If the issue is eventually heard by the high court, the justices may be forced to revisit Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark 1976 case that basically equated campaign spending with free speech. The complicated Buckley decision holds, among other things, that campaign expenditures can't be curbed because doing so would limit a candidate's speech. That makes Vermont's clean-elections law "an exercise in defiance of free speech in our country," says attorney James Bopp, an experienced campaign-finance lawyer representing the Vermont Right to Life Committee.

The National Voting Rights Institute is litigating the case alongside the state, representing "intervenors" -- groups that are allowed by the court to join the state's defense. In this case they include VermontPIRG, the Vermont League of Women Voters, and state legislators.

To Bonifaz, defending Vermont's law is part of the struggle to end what he calls "the wealth primary," the system of private election financing that gives wealthy candidates and campaign contributors extraordinary influence over elections. If the Supreme Court were to overturn Buckley v. Valeo, it would be a critical victory in the battle. It would also be a step toward Bonifaz's larger and more ambitious goal: full public financing of elections, with mandatory spending limits.

The wealth primary is part of what made George W. Bush the front-runner in the GOP presidential primary and caused some candidates, including Elizabeth Dole and John Kasich, to drop out before a single vote was cast. Insidiously, the wealth primary prevents many candidates with good ideas from making headway at all levels of government. More than ever, candidates with deep pockets thrive; lesser-funded candidates succumb to them with alarming consistency (see "By the Numbers," page 19), while many others never make it into the race at all.

Meanwhile, a voter who can afford a $1000 donation to a candidate has more influence over the process than the citizen whose only contribution is a vote on Election Day. And with the cost of this year's federal election cycle estimated at $3 billion, the influence of private money in the election of public officials has never been higher.

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | Next

Ben Geman can be reached at bgeman[a]phx.com.