Fraudulent reform

With the Senate’s refusal last month to bring a substantive campaign finance reform measure to a vote, the House has added insult to injury by considering a sham of a reform bill that does nothing to slow special-interest money. The House is expected to vote on the measure today and should reject it.

The bill the Senate could not bring itself to support, the Bipartisan Clean Congress Act, would have banned money channeled through the politial parties to candidates — so-called soft money — lowered the cost of campaigning and set voluntary spending limits. The bill being considered in the House does none of these things. It is, instead, a cynical attempt to claim campaign reform has occurred when it would, in fact, make the system worse.

H.R. 3760 fails to stanch the flow of soft money from political action committees. This is a primary reason for reform. In the last 18 months, PACs have contributed almost $90 million to the major political parties. Their influence over legislation increases by the year, yet the House bill merely writes into law a Federal Election Commission loophole that has allowed the contributions in the first place. Sponsors of the House version of the Clean Congress Act have been trying, so far without success, to change this provision.

Even if they are successful, however, the House bill would be seriously flawed. It contains provisions to increase the amount individuals can give to candidates and political parties. Contributions to candidates, for example, would be increased from $2,000 per election cycle to $5,000, indexed to increase automatically. Currently, less than 1 percent of Americans give contributions over $200 per election cycle. This provision increases the sway a tiny percentage of Americans hold over Congress. The bill would have been far better off trying to reduce the costs of running for office, thereby making the elections affordable for more challengers.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a violation of free speech to impose spending limits on candidates — which might limit their access to the public through advertisements — but allowed that voluntary limits, with rewards for abiding by them, are acceptable. Again, the Clean Congress Act contained this provision and the “reform” bill being considered in the House does not.

Both parties have pledged major reform of the corrupt campaign finance system, and individual members of Congress have presented solid proposals. But party leadership has been consistently hostile to these ideas. The proposal in the House today is only the latest example of their refusal to give campaign finance reform a chance.