Second thoughts on reform

For the past six years, since losing control of Congress following the 1994 elections, Democrats have been on the right side of campaign finance reform, partly because the money-stained system is in desperate need of reform, partly because it’s easy to be for legislation that has no chance of passing. Twice in the last Congress, the McCain-Feingold reform bill passed in the House, twice it was blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

Democratic gains in the Senate last election, plus the conversions of a growing number of Republicans tired of being wrong, give reform advocates a filibuster-proof majority; a true debate on McCain-Feingold is a certainty this session, passage a distinct possibility. Provided, that is, second thoughts don’t get in the way.

Already, with Senate debate still weeks away, there are signs that the Democratic base of McCain-Feingold support is under pressure. The announcement by the AFL-CIO last week that it strenuously objects to parts of the bill it once strongly supported should be a sobering reminder to reformers that legislation doesn’t have to be killed outright; often it can be weakened and just left to die.

McCain-Feingold attacks the scourge of soft money, unregulated contributions made not to candidates but to parties, an elections-law loophole that merely pretends to eliminate the influence of money upon politics. More than a half-billion dollars in soft money was spent in the 2000 election cycle, about $30 million of that came from organized labor, a smallish but significant fraction. Between Big Business and Big Labor, the amount of soft money has doubled in each of the last two presidential elections; the only question that remains is whether the money buys the office-holders or just the offices.

The AFL-CIO, in a position paper issued at its executive council meeting, says it still supports getting soft money out of politics, but now opposes two McCain-Feingold provisions that restrict advertising immediately before an election and that control “in-kind” donations of staff and nonmonetary resources. The ”electioneering” provision restricts the ability of unions and corporations to run “issue-ads” that name candidates within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election – the AFL-CIO says it unfairly allows other nonprofit groups to continue the practice. The “coordination” provision restricts the mingling of staff, consultants, office space and other resources between advocacy groups and the candidates. The AFL-CFIO says this interferes with the right to free association.

The AFL-CIO makes valid points regarding both provisions, but the larger point is that everyone -make that every organization – that is accustomed to having the ability to influence politics beyond the level of one person, one vote has something to lose with campaign finance reform. In a perfect world, the electioneering restriction would apply to all groups. In the real world, Congress must start with Big Business and Big Labor and work its way down to smaller groups later. The “in-kind” restriction may seem targeted at people-heavy unions, but it is a provision specifically intended to offset the legislation’s impact upon money-heavy corporations. Years of debate on campaign-finance reform has shown that such a concession by the unions is crucial for bipartisan support.

There are many Republicans still opposed to the measure, so a few votes peeled off on the other side could stall reform for years to come. Neither of the issues raised by the AFL-CIO are new, they just matter now only because reform might actually pass. Democrats who have enjoyed the luxury of the high road on this issue now must resist the pressure, and the second thoughts.