Read Ellen Miller's responses to your questions
NewsHour Coverage of Campaign Finance Reform
Oct. 11, 1996:
Shields & Gigot debate the latest accusations of campaign finance abuses.
Oct. 6, 1996:
Bob Dole and Bill Clinton discuss campaign finance reform during the first presidential debate.
Sept. 29, 1996:
The leaders of Congress discuss reforming the system during the Debate Night: The Future Congress.
Aug. 16, 1996:
Margaret Warner looks at the corporate lobbying and sponsorship at the national conventions.
June 28, 1996:
Shields and Gigot look at the failed attempt to pass the McCain-Feingold reform.
June 28, 1996:
Ellen Miller participates in an Online Forum on the campaign finance reform efforts.
June 24, 1996:
Senator Feingold defends the McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform bill against an opponent
April 15, 1996:
NewsHour coverage of "soft" money contributions.
April 10, 1996:
NewsHour coverage of complaints against organized labor for millions of dollars in campaign spending.
Outside Links
Visit the Federal Election Commission
|
 In the Spring of 1995, this now infamous moment took place when President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich shook hands and agreed to form a bi-partisan commission to overhaul the campaign finance system. But to date, the commission has never been formed, and efforts to re-tool campaign spending practices failed again in both houses of Congress this year.
Over the past two weeks, sources of campaign contributions have become a dominant issue in the presidential race. When it was revealed that a wealthy banking family from Indonesia had contributed nearly $500,000 to the Democratic National Committee and subsequently met personally with the President, Republicans and reformers cried foul. The revelation came less than a week after the public interest group Common Cause described this year's presidential campaigns as having committed, in their words, "the most egregious violations of campaign spending since Watergate." Republican candidate Bob Dole is not immune from criticism over his supporters like Archer Daniels Midland and various tobacco interests.
Efforts to change the system ran into opposition in the courts as well as in the halls of Congress. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that spending money in a campaign amounted to speech and to limit that would infringe on the candidate's Constitutional rights. The decision has sparked confrontations throughout the political world as shown in this exchange on last Friday's NewsHour (10/11/96):
PAUL GIGOT: Common Cause is the arsonist who reports his own fire to the police . . .The
system that was designed by Common Cause and some
of their intellectual allies, and that's what comes of
spending limits. What's--you can't limit political speech like that.
MARK SHIELDS: Paul, don't talk to me about speech being money. Money is not speech because if you start to say money is speech, what you're saying is millionaires matter more, let's have a poll tax in the country. Don't blame Common Cause for this situation. It is not Common Cause's fault Common Cause responded, and so did the Congress of the United States in 1975, after Richard Nixon, after the revelations and the disclosures of people being shaken down, extortion, and illegal expenditures. That's what happened. That's what happened in this country. Maybe you weren't around then. I was, and I can tell you how corrupt it was, and I can tell you after that, Paul, we went to a system where, in fact, people did abide by it.
Our Forum asked: Are we becoming too concerned about Political Action Committees and their influence, or are they a real threat to our representative democracy? Can we and should we limit the ability of a candidate to spend money to win an election? Can new reforms improve the situation or will they simply cause new unforeseen problems?
 Ellen Miller, Executive Director of the Center for Responsive Politics, answered your questions about the state of campaigning in America.
|
Questions asked in this forum:
A question from Lisa Johnson of Charlottesville, VA:
Larry Sabato said in an interview with David Gergen that continued regulation of campaign finances would not work. He said there should be a deregulation of the system coupled with stricter disclosure of who is giving money. Do you think his proposal has merit? Why or why not?
Ellen Miller responds:
No. Proposals to deregulate the campaign finance system go in precisely the
wrong direction. If we think the problem of big money in our political system is
bad today, hang onto your hats in any deregulated system.
Even at the current $1,000 level, the financing of our politics is out of reach
for all but the very few in our society who can afford to "pay to play." Right
now, less than one-quarter of one percent of the people of this country make a
contribution to congressional candidates of $200, let alone one of $1,000.
Raising the contribution limits, or doing away with them, as Sabato suggests,
would put the financing of our elections even more securely in the hands of
wealthy economic interests, causing an even more dramatic skewing of public
policy in favor of big campaign contributors and putting dreams of running for
office only into the heads of those who are personally wealthy or those who will
beholden to wealthy interests.
Disclosure, even improved disclosure will only tell us how bad the system is. It
wont do anything to establish a political system that is fair for candidates and
voters.
Return to question index...
A question from Stephanie Jenkins of Wichita, KS:
If the Supreme Court has, at least for now, essentially equated money with speech, how can real reform occur? Can a regulation limit the amount of money spent in a campaign and still stand up under judicial review?
Ellen Miller responds:
There are proposals that stand up to and are perfectly consistent with the
Supreme Court's decision -- Buckley v. Valeo. These are proposals that offer to
candidates voluntary systems of public financing. Those candidates who opt into
the system agree to accept limits on spending and other restrictions in exchange
for public funds.
While there are proposals that are consistent with Buckley and can be crafted to
comply with it, the money-equals-speech equation (which made little sense 20
years ago when it was established by the Supreme Court) makes even less sense
today when it is clear that the speech of candidates and voters who can't raise
or contribute lots of money is being silenced by the massive amounts of money
being raised and spent by the wealthy.
Senator Bill Bradley put it this way: A poor man's soapbox does not
equal a rich man's wallet.
Return to question index...
A question from Shelley Cunningham of St. Paul, MN:
A lot has been made of the recent "Indonesian Connection." Is this kind of foreign support for a political party unprecedented or has it happened before and not been noticed?
Ellen Miller responds:
We do not know the degree to which overseas corporations and individuals fund
political campaign since there is no clear cut way of identifying them. The
bigger issue really is whether corporate campaign contributions from any source
corrupt candidates and our elected officials. In this instance, the Republicans
have accused the Clinton Administration of offering special deals for big
campaign contributors. If campaign contributions from private interests who seek
special favors are a problem for Democrats, which indeed they are, then they are
also a problem for Republicans. It's time we came down hard on the political
double standard.
In reality, our campaign finance system is a quid-pro-quo system. Both parties
and every candidate is up to his or her eyebrows in it. When candidates for
political office solicit and receive big bucks for their political campaigns,
big favors are incurred. Both parties know it. Both parties do it.
Return to question index...
A question from Andrew Langer of New York, NY:
Having once worked on a campaign and done research at the FEC, I know you can obtain lists of all sorts of donors to individual campaigns. This is public information which any journalist can look up. Don't they have some responsibility to, as the Forum says, "Follow the Money" and find out where this money is coming from? Do you think the press does an adequate job reporting on this issue?
Ellen Miller responds:
The press has done an excellent job in following the money. Could they do more.
Of course. There are a huge number of resources for them now, including access
to the data bases of the Center for Responsive Politics and our Web page at
www.crp.org. I think the biggest challenge for the press to tell the money in
politics story in terms that people can understand, addressing the fundamental
"bread and butter" issues that most of us care about.
Why citizens should care about money and politics should become the watchword of
political reporting. This is because whether you care about gambling, or food
safety, about higher cable television bills or electric utility rates, campaign
contributions make a difference. It is critically important to raise a flag
about how ordinary citizens are largely left out of the law-writing process,
while monied interests always have a seat at the table and how the results can
affect what citizens care about.
Here are a few examples:
- The gambling industry contributes more than a half a million dollars through
PACs and in soft money, lobbies against establishing a national commission that
will examine who gambles, how much, and what the cost is to the economy.
Possible impact on citizens: As gambling business grows, critics claim that it
causes addiction, crime, family problems, and job loss, while doing little to
promote economic development.
- Oil and gas companies, which give $3.3 million through PACs, want to open the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Possible impact on citizens:
Public giveaway to private corporations, which has environmental implications.
- British Petroleum America gives $49,300 through PACs this election cycle, wins
an exemption for taxes on imported recycled halons, an ozone-depleting chemical
used to suppress fires. The tax break will cost tax payers $9 million over ten
years. Possible impact on citizens: Taxpayers subsidize foreign company for
using chemical that can be harmful to the environment.
- Electric utility PACs give nearly $2 million, lobby on how the electricity
market will be deregulated. The outcome will determine whether and if consumers
will benefit when utility monopolies are broken up. Possible impact on citizens:
Will citizens pay lower electricity bills, or will deregulation be written in
such a way that only large corporate electricity users will benefit?
- Drug industry gives $1.6 million through PACs, thwarts drug stores by refusing
to give them the same discounts that HMOs and hospitals enjoy. Drug stores say
this costs consumers money. Possible impact on citizens: higher prices for
medicines.
- Sugar growers contribute $1.5 million through PACs and weather repeated attacks
on the federal loan subsidy program that keeps sugar prices artificially high.
Possible impact on citizens: People pay higher prices for sugar and subsidize
industry which environmentalists say is contributing to degradation of the
Everglades.
Return to question index...
A question from Domenico Russo of Blue Point, NY:
On the issue of campaign finance reform, it appears that any attempt to limit campaign contributions will inevitably be challenged on grounds that it is unconstitutional. Would it not be a better idea to promote reform by eliminating the advantage of money in campaigning altogether? One way to accomplish this is to require broadcasters to allot an extensive amount of time during election years to free and open debate and discussion among all registered candidates. [What is your opinion of this proposal?]
Ellen Miller responds:
Mr. Russo has this just right when he suggests that the best campaign finance
reform proposal would be to eliminate the advantage of money altogether. The
only proposal that would do that is one that is being advanced by activists in
nearly a dozen states around the country -- a voluntary system of full public
financing in which candidates qualify for funding by raising a set number of
small dollar contributions.
No single campaign finance reform measure is capable of solving all the problems
associated with the impact of private money on America's elections. But this
proposal will eliminate the indebtedness that lawmakers feel after Election Day
-- the obligations that come from accepting large amounts of campaign money from
private interests. Thus, lawmakers will feel much less pressure to hand out
subsidies, tax breaks, and other kinds of legislative favors to corporations and
the wealthy. As a result, taxpayers are likely to save billions of dollars. In
short, a system of full public financing will create a Congress that, at the
very least, is no longer dependent on big-money interests for campaign funds and
is therefore more capable of acting in the public interest.
No single proposal will guarantee greater voter participation or greater
participation in the political process in general -- or assure that the nation
moves closer to real democracy. However, a system of full public financing can
serve as a galvanizing new beginning. Many people choose not to vote or
otherwise get involved in politics because they are convinced that the political
system is already bought and sold and that their participation makes no
difference. By removing personal wealth or the ability to raise large sums of
money as a prerequisite for getting elected to major public office, it is
reasonable to believe that people's confidence in their government and their
willingness to participate in the political process will increase. As ordinary
citizens without access to wealth see that more people like themselves are
running for and winning elections -- and that once in office public officials
who want to get reelected are working harder to address the issues and concerns
of ordinary voters -- they are more likely to believe that their participation
can make a difference.
As part of this proposal, broadcasters should offer extensive free broadcast
time to candidates.
Return to question index...
Additional Comments:
Dan Gorman of
Chicago IL
dan gorman
Thanks for once again hosting a forum on a topic that goes to
the heart of American public life.
I have felt strongly for many years now that perhaps the
single most urgent problem in our public life is our
increasingly pervasive and corrosive cynicism toward public
officials and public institutions. Though we have always had
a strong tradition of skepticism toward politicians and other
figures of authority, there was a time, not too long ago,
when ordinary citizens were, if anything, too credulous
toward elected officials.
The searing, and disillusioning experiences of President
Kennedy's assassination, Vietnam, and Watergate (along with
a great many lesser events) taught us well the lesson that
"official" information is not always reliable. Our leaders
developed the habit of telling us half-truths, and outright
lies, too often rationalizing them by invoking the need for
"national security." The press did its job by exposing many
of these abuses, and the unfortunate, though understandable
reaction of many citizens was to habitually discount any and
every public utterance by any public official on any subject.
We have come to the point where a critical component of the
democratic dialogue between citizens and their leaders is
all but impossible. Ordinary people tend to think that
social problems are simpler than they really are, and that
politicians make them sound more complex than necessary
as a way to muddy the waters so that they can pursue their
own policy agendas. While this is undoubtedly true at times,
we habitually tune out any message from public officials that
doesn't fit our preconceived notions of reality. We don't
recognize the truth when we hear it. Politicians know that
there are certain messages that just will not go through, no
matter what evidence is shown, and so give up on trying to
tell us things we don't want to hear.
This is an incredibly long-winded way of saying how important
it is that we begin to restore the needed mutual trust
between citizens and their leaders by enacting meaningful,
substantive reform of campaign financing and lobbying. Most
of us don't know the technical details of how campaigns are
financed, nor the nuances of the relationship between
interest groups and public officials, but we know intuitively
that there is a great, and growing disparity between the
influence of ordinary citizens and that of wealthy,
well-organized lobbies.
The history of reform efforts has shown that tinkering with
the mechanics of how campaigns are funded, or how lobbyists
may interact with public officials is ineffective. Money, if
it is needed, will find its way to those who seek it. We
need to break the link between money and political speech,
and these days, this means fundamentally reordering the
relationship between politics and television. We must find
a way to provide free, or low-cost access to television for
candidates, and do so in a way that their messages will reach
people -- that is, not a 3:00 am on a little-watched channel.
There are legitimate free speech and property issues to
grapple with here, but grapple we must.
We must also realize that not all campaign contributions
"buy influence," but find a way to shed light on those that
do. The press does as much of this as it currently can, but
it may be that we need much fuller disclosure of
contributions and contacts between public officials and
those with interests in public policy.
If Bill Clinton wants to leave his stamp on American history,
he could leave us no finer legacy than this. He should make
real, fundamental campaign finance and lobbying reform the
centerpiece and number-one priority of his second term, and
spend whatever political capital he has to push through
legislation -- including Constitutional amendments, if
necessary -- and make the 1998 mid-term elections a
referendum on a vision of democracy for the twenty-first
century.
Return to Top
