Tom Barlow '62 went to Washington in 1992, a newly minted congressman from Kentucky. The freshman Democrat had just ousted a 12-year incumbent from the First District seat with over 60% of the popular vote, and had spent only around $30,000 in campaign funds to ensure the victory. But Barlow soon discovered that the campaigning was not behind him once he took his seat, rather it had just begun. With only two years between House elections, Representatives are constantly raising money for the next race, building war chests to finance the next campaign. For Barlow this meant spending a lot of time on the phone with individual donors, devoting precious time to raising money. Federal law restricts members of Congress from making these calls from their congressional offices, so Barlow, like most of his colleagues, had a small room with a phone near his office building. He would often run back and forth between this office and his House chambers, spending a large part of his scant free time on the phone.
Barlow explains, "The constant need to raise money is both a great strain on the member and it takes away from their ability to focus on the constituents needs. If the district needs a new sewer project, it might not get the full attention it deserves because the member has to spend a lot of time raising money." This is especially true with individual donors, who are limited by law to contributions of $1,000 or less. "If you want to raise $100,000 from individuals, that means you have to make a thousand phone calls, and the average individual donation is not $1,000."
In 1994, the First Kentucky District was targeted by the Republicans, and money was poured into the race on both sides. Barlow's spending shot up to almost a half million dollars, but he was eventually defeated by his Republican challenger. The race wasn't a fiscal aberration; throughout the country the amount of money raised for congressional campaigns rose from $659.3 million in 1992 to $740.5 million in 1994, according to the Federal Election Commission. Fund-raising figures increased another five percent during the 1996 elections to reach an all-time high of 790.5 million dollars. By comparison, the amount raised a mere ten years earlier during the 1986 congressional elections was almost half of the 1996 figure, totaling $472 million. The amount Tom Barlow spent in his second campaign is now pocket change to some candidates; in 1995-96, 102 House candidates spent over a million dollars running for office, more than twice the number who reached that mark in 1993-94. As these numbers indicate, the cost of political campaigns has exploded.
So too have the number of fund-raising tactics employed by candidates who are forced to chase the money. The high cost of running for elected office has encouraged dubious fund-raising practices, and the exploitation of several gaping loopholes in the existing campaign finance laws. Soft money is the principal offender, unlimited funds given by special interest groups, corporations, and individuals to political parties instead of individual candidates. The parties in turn use the money to publicize and promote their candidates. Creative ways of skirting donation limits also allow donors personal access to members of Congress for a price. A donor can pay $1,000 for a round of golf with a member or for a choice seat at a dinner party. Or for a much higher price tag, coffee at the White House. The 1996 election brought campaign finance into the public eye, with the allegations of laundered contributions from foreign nationals, White House fund-raising tactics, and the huge influx of soft money. There are several movements toward reform underway, but their success is dependent on encouraging Congress to abandon the fund-raising tactics from which they benefit. There is also the risk that real reform will get lost in the rush to expose illegal campaign finance rather than questioning currently legal practices.
The last major effort to reform campaign finance was touched off in 1974 by a similar, albeit much more outrageous scandal. Watergate opened the floodgates on the abuses of the 1972 presidential campaigns, in which large sums of unregulated and illegal money flowed into the race. The 1974 reforms sought to give power to their toothless predecessor, the Federal Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA). FECA required full disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures by candidates and set the framework for the establishment of political action committees (PACs), currently major contributors to campaigns. A one dollar voluntary check-off on tax returns was also implemented (and later increased to the current three dollars) to encourage more public funding of presidential elections. However, FECA's major flaw was that it did not establish an independent body to enforce these laws, and violations for the most part went unprosecuted.
|
|
|
|
With the 1974 amendments, Congress rectified this oversight by establishing the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent agency that was created to enforce the 1971 act. Strict limits were also placed on both contributions and expenditures that applied both to candidates and PACs. Individuals could only contribute a maximum of $1,000 to a candidate and PACs were limited to $5,000 per candidate. The constitutionality of these provisions was immediately challenged, culminating in the 1976 Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo. The Court upheld the contribution limits but struck down the expenditure limits, stating that to limit spending was equivalent to curbing the free speech of a candidate. Subsequent amendments to FECA during the late 1970's made small changes, but for the most part kept the legislation intact.
Bill Loughrey '72 was a staffer for the House Republicans when the 1974 amendment creating the Federal Election Commission was passed. He then moved over to the FEC in 1975, first as an aide to the chairman and later as deputy staff director. "Originally we tried to set up an independent commission," he says of the 1974 amendment. "The first appointees were former members of Congress and they were laughed at because how independent were they going to be? Well, first they were retired, and second, they wanted to keep their reputations, so they vigorously enforced the laws in the '70s. You look at the elections during the latter half of that decade and they are for the most part honest and straightforward; there wasn't a lot of corruption after Watergate." Despite the early success, the FEC has since become in effect a paper tiger. The six commissioners are required to be evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, each appointed by the Congressional leadership of their parties, which often leads to deadlock. The absence of term limits means that commissioners who run afoul of their party's wishes often do not get reappointed, a reality that leaves little room for independence among commissioners wanting to make a career at the FEC. Finally, their budget is controlled by a Congress that has reduced their funding. All these factors severely limit the FEC's ability to enforce campaign finance laws and close up loopholes. "There are no clear lines in terms of how the law is enforced; people are not scared of the Commission because there's no clear, vigorous enforcement," says Loughrey. The result is that fundraising transgressions go unpunished and spending for the most part remains unchecked.
|
|
|
|
The cost of running for Congress has been driven up by the need for publicity and the desire for name recognition. The major medium is television, which does not come cheap. "In the Pittsburgh market, the cost of one 30-second campaign commercial during the evening news is $1,000; during prime time it is $3,000. If you want to run a commercial on Monday Night Football and the Steelers are playing, it's going to cost upwards of $7,000," explains Jon Delano '71. Delano has first-hand experience; in 1994 he ran for an open Congressional seat in Pennsylvania's 18th District, bowing out after the democratic primary. Currently a professor at the H. John Heinz School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon, he teaches a course that explores campaign finance practices and abuses. He is also a political commentator for KDKA television in Pittsburgh.
"With the high cost of television and the breakdown of the political parties as a mechanism to reach the people, you really are compelled to communicate via the media and direct mail," he states. "If you are an unknown trying to establish yourself, or you're not known in a way you want to be, you're going to have to expect to raise and spend around $200,000 in a mid-sized media market." Delano mustered only half that amount in his bid for Congress, shelling out $100,000 for modest television ads that were run only in the week before the election. Ideally ads in a Congressional race should run for four to six weeks before the election, with a budget of a quarter of a million dollars for television. He also spent $60,000 on direct mail throughout his campaign. These ads are a critical part of a campaign; Delano points out it is often simple associations that can sway voters. "Name recognition is very important in politics. What you want is to have a very well recognized name and then back that up with a positive connection to the voter. All you need is a reaction from the voter that is positive."
Raising a quarter of a million dollars for television alone is no simple task, and candidates have been forced to seek other media to get their message across at a lower price. Soft money has often proved to be an answer to this dilemma. In 1978 the FEC decided that individuals, corporations, and unions were not bound by federal election laws with respect to party-building activities, meaning that political parties could solicit them for unlimited funds. In theory, party-building encompasses activities such as voter registration drives, voter education, and polling and events on behalf of the party candidates. In practice, this money often ends up paying for expensive television ads on behalf of the party candidate. According to Delano, soft money paid for most of the television commercials in the 1996 presidential election. "Soft money has re-established the fat cats. It puts a premium once again on the multi-millionaire who can give $50,000 to the party."
Incumbency also gives a candidate a distinct advantage during an election. Candidates running for re-election start out ahead simply because they don't have to spend as much money on name recognition. Raising money is also a much easier task once in office. Political action committees especially tend to give more money to incumbents rather than risk their limited donations on currying favor with challengers who may never hold office. According to the FEC, PACs contributed a total of $133.3 million to incumbents during the 1996 election cycle, while challengers only benefited from a mere $28.3 million. The greater availability of resources stands out dramatically in the expenditure figures during the same elections. Challengers spent $147 million overall while incumbents shelled out $344 million to defend their seats. Challengers only won 6% of the elections that weren't for an open seat, strong evidence that the financial security enjoyed by incumbents makes them extremely difficult to topple. Unless a challenger can finance an election from his or her own personal coffers to keep up with incumbent spending, the number of people who can feasibly run for office is drastically limited. "The impact of the current system is to shut out whole sectors of our society from elected office," says Delano. "It's not just the poor or minorities; there is a huge hunk of middle-class folks who just couldn't compete."
There are some organizations, however, that see these same people as an important force in passing effective campaign finance reform. Common Cause is a 250,000 member-strong grassroots group that combines constituent pressure on elected officials with effective lobbying on Capitol Hill. "We are trying to make government more accountable to the voters by pushing for legislation such as campaign finance reform, open government meetings, ethics laws, financial disclosure for public officials, and civil rights," says Ed Davis '70. As Associate Director, Davis lobbies members of Congress, and develops strategies for Common Cause. Being a watchdog group on Capitol Hill does not make Common Cause very popular among elected officials, but they have managed to effect change. The gift ban, preventing members of Congress from accepting free meals, trips, and other perks from lobbyists, was a major recent Common Cause victory.
|
|
|
|
|
Campaign finance reform has been the focus of the group's watchful eye for the past few years. "We think that money excessively dominates the political process. Those interests lobbying Congress that have significant resources can warp the process by having too much influence. A system has developed over the years where if you have the money to contribute to campaigns, you will also get access and influence in legislative and regulatory processes, and too often that shuts out the broader public interest," explains Davis. The group has been lobbying hard for a bill sponsored by Senators Russell Feingold of Wisconsin and John McCain from Arizona. The bipartisan legislation calls for major changes in campaign finance practices, which Common Cause endorses as viable solutions.
A major target of both the McCain-Feingold bill and Common Cause is soft money. During the 1996 election, over 260 million dollars of unregulated money was contributed to national political parties by corporations, unions, and individuals. According to Common Cause, the national parties raised $34 million in soft money in the first six months of 1997, despite the increased media scrutiny the 1996 elections prompted. To Common Cause, the easiest solution is an outright ban on soft money, a law that would prohibit candidates and national parties from soliciting, receiving or spending any funds that fall outside the current fund-raising laws. In this scenario, independent expenditures, money spent by PACs supporting or attacking a candidate, and issue advocacy, issue-based ads produced by independent groups without coordination with parties or candidates, would be brought under tighter controls by the proposed legislation.
Common Cause is also pushing a more proactive approach to reform. Voluntary spending limits, already in place for presidential races, would in theory level the playing field for financially-strapped challengers, and also curb excessive expenditures. Several money saving incentives would encourage politicians to put a cap on their spending. In return for agreeing to observe spending limits, candidates would receive free half hour blocks of air time on television and radio. Broadcasting companies would also be required to sell advertisement slots to candidates who agree to spending limits at the lowest unit rate. The presidential election system is a good example of how voluntary limits can work; candidates who agree to curb spending are entitled to federal funds, money that comes from the three-dollar check-off on income tax returns. Rich Thomas '91, a former staffer at Common Cause and currently a law student at Northeastern University says, "the incentives there are direct financing, not free broadcasting, but most major presidential candidates with a couple of exceptions have participated in that system, and it has made elections competitive. We have seen challengers win three out of five presidential races since that system was set in place." Soft money has tainted that success, but in practice the limits, established by the 1974 reforms, have worked.
In the tradition of grassroots movements, Common Cause also lobbies at the local level. While with the group, Thomas met often with Common Cause members, gathered people to hand out fliers outside of offices, met with editorial boards of local papers, all in an effort to rally the public. Most recently he was working on a petition drive called Project Independence, an effort to put pressure on Congress by collecting signatures from every district. "In essence, the crux of our work is that we need to demonstrate to Congress that their constituents care," he explains. "People care more when you can explain what this issue means in terms of their day-to-day lives. You have to show them how it relates to their major concerns, how unless you deal with the issue of special interest contributions, you often can't tackle a lot of other problems such as health care. That is what I spent a lot of my time doing, trying to explain that connection to people."
However, despite the lobbying of groups such as Common Cause, many aspects of proposed campaign finance reform are not popular on Capitol Hill. For example, the voluntary spending limits are not favored by many members of Congress, and are one of the more imperiled parts of McCain-Feingold. "It appears that some of these limits are designed to impose significant burdens or disadvantages on people who don't agree to the spending limits," says Congressman Charles Canady '76 of Florida's 12th Congressional District. "I am skeptical about the regime of incentives that are proposed because they essentially would force a candidate into the so-called voluntary spending limits."
Canady also stresses that his own campaign experiences have been different than most of his colleagues. "I'm atypical. I probably spend less than 80% of the successful candidates for Congress," he explains. He spent a relatively small amount when he won his seat in 1992, and not much more in the 1994 elections. However, his spending dropped during 1996, mostly because he didn't have any strong opposition. "We've run frugal campaigns, with most of the money going directly into voter contact," he says. "If I had someone running against me who was outraising me, I would have picked up my fund-raising efforts, but that's not been a priority for me. I'm a little different than most members of Congress." He didn't even run television ads during 1996 and conducted only modest ad campaigns during his first two bids for office, instead relying mostly on mailings to get his message across. Canady also does not send mass-mailed newsletters to his constituents, something he views as being a use of taxpayer money for thinly-veiled campaigning on the part of incumbents.
|
|
|
Despite his reservations on spending limits, Congressman Canady does feel strongly about other aspects of campaign finance and the proposed reforms. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution in the House Judiciary Committee, Canady's major concerns with suggested reforms of the system center around the First Amendment. Independent groups often run advertisements devoted to a particular issue, called issue advocacy, during election years. These ads might, for example, criticize or applaud a particular candidate's policy, or call on voters to send a message to an elected official. The major restriction is that they cannot expressly advocate the defeat or election of a candidate. It is often a fine line between express advocacy and issue advocacy, but one that Canady feels is clear. "There are a lot of politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, conservative and liberal, who don't like issue advocacy ads and would shut them down if they could. I am deeply troubled by that because I think those sorts of communications are the very core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect. The Supreme Court in the Buckley case drew a bright line between express advocacy and other ads that might mention the name of a candidate, but do not expressly advocate his election or defeat."
Soft money is one area that he would reform. "You have a clear record of abuse associated with soft money. We've got people writing big checks to the political parties and office holders are involved in soliciting those checks - that gives an unseeming appearance to the system," Canady says. This is the area of campaign finance that his constituents are most concerned with, but on the whole, he hasn't heard much from the voters. Bill Loughery agrees that people would be concerned if asked, but aren't going to take to the streets any time soon to press for reform. "The American people are interested, but it's not one of their top five issues, maybe because they are all so cynical that they believe it will never happen, but also because they might not be interested."
Are the American people interested? Should they care? Most Americans are either intensely cynical about anything surrounding politics, or they're just not paying attention to what goes on in government. Voting statistics bring this point home - in the 1996 election, less than half of the eligible voters went to the polls, and in 1994 when there was no presidential race, only 38% turned up to vote. And while most people would agree that individuals and corporations should not be allowed to contribute large amounts of money to fuel campaigns, how many people participate in public funding by checking off the three-dollar contribution on their tax return? The current scandals involving soft money might be enough to pique the public's interest in campaign finance, but probably will not prompt an outpouring of demands for reform. John Delano sums this up, saying, "The public is so apathetic to take part even in the simple act of voting that it's hard to imagine the great public rising up over who gives how much money to whom."
But in the long run it may be the public who would benefit the most from some form of campaign finance reform. Members of Congress have little incentive to change the system without considerable constituent pressure, and many have already vowed to quell any attempts at significant reform. Ed Davis states, "The debate over reform is central to the way democracy works. You are electing people, you want to have a choice, and if you've got one incumbent who is easily able to outspend any opponent and discourage people from running, you make the races non-competitive. Therefore the member of Congress becomes less accountable to the voters and more accountable to people who are giving him money for his elections. It's a system that perpetuates incumbents and unfortunately it feeds on voters cynicism about Congress and the political process. One of the things that people underestimate is how much members would listen if they thought that the people were effectively mobilized."
For the time being, Congress isn't hearing much. So where does that leave campaign finance reform? McCain and Feingold plan to push their legislation in the Senate this fall and the President has pledged to make reform part of his agenda. The Senate hearings on alleged improprieties have also put the spotlight on the use of soft money by both parties. Haverford Professor of Political Science Sid Waldman believes that some change is possible, but in a limited scope. "Campaign finance is a focus now because of the scandals, and I think there are some in Congress who would like to use it as a way to improve the system. But there are some major problems with the system, and until the American people demand significant change and remain aware, the changes are likely to be of limited value."
Meanwhile, Tom Barlow is running for Congress again in 1998. And he's already started raising money.
