Political poison

To fix the government, reform fundraising

The US Senate this week has been debating one of the most important issues it will face all year: how to curb the corrupting effects of money on our democracy.

America has a long history of tainted elections: from George Washington's offers of rum and hard cider for votes, to the rampant bribery that left the Grant administration completely ineffective, to Nixon's infamous paper bags of cash. But after the Watergate scandals, Congress felt the public's rage and instituted reforms: public financing for the presidential race, caps on campaign contributions, and strict reporting requirements. The popular will, not money, was to decide elections.

Yet the 1996 election proved that this system is utterly failing. Much has been made of apparently illegal operations, of John Huang, the Lippo group, big bucks from Buddhists, and all the rest. But as disturbing as these revelations are, they are petty -- a few-hundred-thousand here, a few-hundred-thousand there. The real scandal is what is legal. The two large political parties have circumvented the post-Watergate reforms by taking in a flood of so-called soft money -- money that is not regulated, and is not supposed to be used to support individual candidates, but which goes to that purpose by way of "issue ads." In 1996, the parties together amassed an amazing $260 million in these funds.

That wealthy corporations and individuals can give so much money, and that the money can then be leveraged to swing elections for grateful candidates, is a disgrace to the idea of representative democracy.

Currently before the Senate is a measure, sponsored by John McCain (R-Arizona) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), that, among other things, would ban soft-money contributions outright. The bill has been delayed many times, but this time, with the help of all the Democratic senators and a compromise amendment from a group of New England Republicans, it looked as if there was, finally, a solid majority behind reform.

As the Phoenix went to press, the issue had not been fully resolved, but it appeared that Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Mississippi) was going to be able to prevent a vote that he knew he would lose.

The bill, to be sure, is far from perfect. It has been stripped down to its core: the soft-money ban. It is a far cry from a comprehensive system of public financing that would severely limit money's corrosive effects while preserving free-speech rights. (The US Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are a form of political speech.) But it would be a solid step forward.

Lott's move, on behalf of the Republican majority, is outrageously hypocritical. It is the Republicans who have preached about returning power to the people. It is the Republicans who most like to rail against the corruption of Washington. It is the Republicans who have gone after the Clinton administration's admittedly shady dealings. Yet when it comes time to do something about it -- when it is time to move on a bill supported by members of both parties and the vast majority of the public -- Lott chooses parliamentary sabotage. And that's shady and corrupt.

There are many Americans who feel fed up with Washington, who feel that it is out of touch with the people, or even that it is corrupt. For them, and for everyone who believes the national debate should be ruled by ideas, not money, there is no better move than to support an overhaul of campaign finances -- and to punish those who stand in the way.

What do you think? Send an e-mail to letters[a]phx.com.