Keeping a list

With timing that shows he knows plenty about how campaign games are played, Gov. George W. Bush recently posted a list of all his campaign contributors to date — some 100,000 of them. He did this just as the House began its debate on the latest version of campaign-finance reform, and the message from Gov. Bush was clear: Why reform the system when all voters need is information about the source of donations? His list, however, is exactly why a major overhaul is needed.

The daily listing of donors has been the anti-reformers’ alternative since computers became widely available. The argument for junking the various reform plans in favor of simply listing donors is that voters are smart — all they need to see is who gave to a candidate’s campaign and they can decide for themselves whether the donations are acceptable. Except they can’t.

They can’t because the list includes only hard money — the limited donations made directly to the candidate. Just about no one thinks there is a problem with hard money, except that the limit of

$1,000 per election cycle may be too low. The level was set in the 1970s and forces candidates to spend endless hours on the phone seeking donations. A more realistic limit of $2,500 or $3,000 would match the original intention of the reform and give candidates more opportunities to campaign.

The problem that needs reforming is soft money, those millions of dollars sent in unlimited quantities by political action committees to the parties that end up in a candidate’s pocket. Gov. Bush’s list (www.georgewbush.com) says nothing about this. Further, his list is missing so much information as to make it impossible to divide donors by occupation or employer. And even if it had that information, the list cannot be downloaded so there is no simple way to sort the information. The donor lists required every three months by the Federal Election Commission are much more complete and easier to use, although they too lack soft money accountings.

The reform package offered in the House yesterday by Reps. Christopher Shays, R.-Conn., and Martin Meehan, D.-Mass., was a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. It bans soft money and restricts the use of issue advertisements by advocacy groups during election seasons. It goes after the big-money problems that have left politicians beholden and voters cynical.

There’s nothing wrong with posting donor lists, as Gov. Bush has done, but they are no substitute for real reform. Congress has that in front of it now. All it needs is the will to pass it.