CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS FAILING

Just a little more than two years after the passage of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), it is obvious that the law has
already failed. The framers claimed that the law would stop the flow
of soft money into politics and limit the influence which donors could
have on our legislators. Not only did it fail to do so, but the flow
of soft money is now far greater than ever before.

The law was sponsored in the House by Congressmen Christopher Shays
and Marty Meehan. Then, after passage, it was championed in the Senate
by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold. It is based on an
underlying assumption that our legislators are, at heart, corruptible,
and therefore must be protected from themselves by legislation which
they themselves create.

The law has failed because of a massive loophole, one that has allowed
527s (unincorporated tax-exempt groups) to rush in and fill the void
created when political parties were denied access to contributions of
soft money from corporations. The flow of soft money did not stop; it
only changed the direction in which it flows. An unprecedented torrent
of soft money now indirectly supports political campaigns by running
through these non-profit organizations.

527s got their name because they are organized under section 527 of
the Internal Revenue Code. Their purpose is to raise money for
political activities including voter mobilization efforts, issue
advocacy, and uncoordinated candidate support. The FEC requires little
from them, except regular disclosure reports about their promotion of
the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

Many 527s raise unlimited 'soft money' for special political
interests. Despite the rhetoric and the best efforts of legislators to
restrict soft money contributions, the flow continues unabated through
new and unrestricted channels.

In his 2002 campaign for re-election, Marty Meehan frequently defended
his role in bringing the bill into law by pointing to Enron's $4
million contributions to political causes. He used this as a glaring
example of the kind of campaign finance corruption that the new bill
would cure. But Enron's political contributions, made to both
political parties over a 10-year period, are barely a footnote in the
face of today's massive campaign funding extravagances .

Sixty-three million dollars has already been contributed through 527
groups on behalf of political campaigns this year. The rising tide of
unintended consequences that arose from the passing of the BCRA can be
seen in the redirection of large, unregulated contributions. This has
created a massive new source of soft money funding from donors who are
largely unaccountable.

Much of the funding comes from individuals who are now able to pump
unlimited sums of money into their favorite political causes and are
doing so at unprecedented rates. Billionaires like George Soros, one
of the richest men in America, and Peter Lewis, former head of the
insurance firm Progressive Corporation, have together contributed
nearly $27 million in soft money in 2004 alone. Their contributions to
liberal Democratic organizations (including Joint Victory Campaign
2004, America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, Marijuana Policy Project,
Young Democrats of America, and PunkVoter Inc.) have topped all
previous soft money records.

There is another major problem with the concept of campaign finance
reform. At the heart of the problem is something I call "The Wealth
Factor." Citizens who do not have great personal wealth are
discouraged from entering the political process as candidates because
the cost of running for office against an incumbent is so forbiddingly
high. Races are won and lost according to which candidate spends the
most money. In 2002, for example, winners in Congressional races
raised and spent more than their unsuccessful opponents by almost 4-to-1.

Incumbents enjoy the opportunity to continually build their campaign
war chests over time. The longer an incumbent is in office, the more
time he has to raise money, the larger his war chest is likely to be,
and the more daunting it is to any potential challenger.

Elections should be about who is the best candidate, not about who has
the most money to spend. So I propose another kind of campaign finance
reform that will level the playing field and encourage more people of
talent to run for office.

I propose that the time during which the candidates (including the
incumbent) may raise money be limited to the current election cycle.
The incumbent, who will still have the advantage of office and access
to the press (an extraordinarily powerful advantage), will
nevertheless be subject to the same fundraising constraints of those
who seek to replace him.

Under this plan, candidates would be able to open their campaign
accounts no more than twelve months prior to the general election, and
would be required to close them within thirty days following election
day. Each new election cycle would begin the fundraising efforts afresh.

I doubt that there is any chance that such a law would pass.
Legislators would most likely see it as a threat to what is now a
comfortable program of incumbency protection. Still, I would like to
believe that the current system that discourages challenge can be changed.

America was meant to be a land of opportunity for everyone willing to
work for it. Our government should be based on those values that have
made this country great, and campaigns should be run over issues, not
money.

The right to take a full part in the electoral process should be
available to every citizen who chooses to exercise it, regardless of
race, religion, or net worth.