finance laws need a tune-up, not an overhaul
By David W. Almasi
posted February 1998
If you were asked to guess how many of the 535 member of Congress filed
complete reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for the 1996
elections, how many would you guess? All of them? A respectable 90 per
cent? Are you skeptical, thinking only 40 per cent did as they were asked?
Guess much lower -- it is less than 5 per cent!
Even though the FEC asks candidates to submit the name, occupation and
employer of anyone giving their campaign $200 or more in a year, only
22 of Members of Congress filed complete reports for 1996. Since FEC rules
only ask for candidates to make the "best effort" to supply
this information, many simply do not put the time or effort into it. Not
only does this flippant behavior fly in the face of the spirit of the
rules, but it also sets the stage for potentially serious campaign finance
violations. Corporate contributors seeking to gain influence by making
contributions exceeding current limits could make multiple donations through
their employees. By intentionally not putting forth the "best effort,"
a candidate could then cover up the incriminating information.
Congressman John Doolittle of California proposes instituting immediate
electronic filings as a solution to this problem. His "Citizen Legislature
and Political Freedom Act" abolishes the "best effort"
provision, requiring candidates to file complete reports with the FEC
by computer every 24 hours during the last 90 days of a campaign. Within
a day, the FEC will then publicly post the reports on its internet website
or a similar venue.
Unlike most campaign reform proposals currently floating around Congress,
Doolittle's bill does not seek to further regulate campaign contributions
or spending as a means of repairing the system. In fact, his bill actually
does away with existing contribution limits entirely. Public knowledge
and the stigma of conducting questionable fundraising in the open is the
means of enforcement. If a candidate accepts large sums of money from
an individual, a company or any amount from a dubious source, public disclosure
of these contributions will be just a keystroke away.
This is just one example of how existing campaign laws can be refined
to make the current system work without prescribing additional rules that
limit the ability of the average American to engage in political speech.
Another pervasive campaign finance problem involves organized labor's
use of member dues. Union bosses regularly use money collected directly
from member paychecks to support political candidates and causes that
members may not know about or even support. Even though the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that union members must, upon their request, be refunded any
portion of their mandatory dues spent for political purposes in the 1988
decision in Communications Workers of America v. Beck, very little protection
of the ability of a union member to engage in their own political choice
actually exists. What is needed is an enforcement mechanism with teeth.
"Payroll protection" measures being considered in the states
as well as in Congress write the spirit of the Beck decision into law,
ensuring that union bosses cannot use member dues for politics unless
the member gives annual written permission. In California, a ballot initiative
to enact this protection at the state level goes before the voters in
June of 1998. Similar initiatives are also being proposed in Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon and Texas.
A recent poll of California voters found 72 per cent in favor of protecting
rights of union members to make their own political decisions. This sentiment
is found in national polls as well. As state legislatures begin their
sessions, legislation safeguarding political choice is set to appear in
all 50 states. When Congress revisits the issue of federal campaign finance
reform this Spring, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles said the "basic
principle of freedom" embodied in payroll protection will be a necessary
component of any successful reform bill.
Any new, sweeping package of campaign finance laws may be ignored, just
as many were in 1996. Worse, several of the proposed new laws would hinder
the average American's ability to participate in the political process.
Giving old laws new bite by adding effective enforcement mechanisms is
the best way to make our political system more fair and more honest.