|
The routine is familiar. 1. Enormous amounts of money slosh around during campaign season.
2. Voters express disgust.
3. Washington talks about campaign-finance reform.
4. Legislation is introduced, then blocked.
5. Fund raising begins anew. Such is the cycle that was played out again last week with the death of the McCain-Feingold bill. Two years after a presidential election made a mockery of spending limits, the U.S. Senate had a chance to enact the most important federal campaign-finance reform law in a generation. But by fewer than 10 votes, the legislation was thwarted. Among those who chose not to be a part of the solution was Oregon Sen. Gordon Smith, a man who spent more than $5 million to get elected in 1996 ($2 million of which was his own money). Instead, Smith blocked reform, supported a filibuster to stave off a vote and even claimed in a floor speech that "you cannot buy elections." Named after its two principal sponsors, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, McCain-Feingold would have banned soft money--unlimited and unregulated contributions to political parties. It would have curtailed the ability of wealthy candidates to buy a seat with their own funds. It would have lowered the reporting threshold of campaign contributions from $200 to $50. It would have prohibited candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, such as mortgage payments. It would have shut down the contributions from foreign nationals. And it would have increased the penalties for elections-law violations. The bill would not have cured the cancer that has contaminated our election system. But it would have markedly improved it. Although more than 50 senators backed the bill, including every Democrat and seven members of the Republican Party, supporters could not muster the 60 needed to force a floor vote. Last week Smith spoke to us at length about his opposition. He was pleasant, at ease and, in his words, "without apology." Smith has two arguments. First is his view that a soft-money ban limits the free-speech rights of those who contribute (contributions being a form of speech). It matters not to Smith that 126 legal scholars believe the soft-money ban would survive a First Amendment challenge. Nor does he agree with Meredith McGehee, the legislative director of Common Cause, who says "that the last refuge of people who don't want campaign reform is the First Amendment." Second, Smith says campaign-finance reform must include a provision that would require unions to ask permission of each of their members before making a specific political contribution. Smith's concern for the welfare of union members is curious, as is his spirited defense of the First Amendment (particularly given that, while in the Legislature, he championed an anti-pornography initiative that tried to rein in the First Amendment). But his positions ultimately do nothing to counter our belief that Smith--on this issue--has become an entrenched incumbent, opposed to reform, interested in maintaining the status quo and unconcerned about the average Oregonian's cynicism about the way we elect officials. |
