How Executive Decision Works
More on Politics in Atlantic Unbound and The Atlantic Monthly
M E M O R A N D U M
| To: | The President of the United States |
| From: | D. N. Forser, Chief of Staff |
| Re: | Campaign-Finance Reform |
| Date: | November 1, 2000 |
Dear Mr./Ms. President:
It's clear that party politics drives the presidential candidates' opposing positions on campaign-finance reform -- specifically the McCain-Feingold bill, which is sure to become an issue in Congress after the election. The Democrats support reform because they raise less money than the Republicans (though the Clinton Administration's pro-business tilt has narrowed the gap). The Republicans are against banning "soft money" -- large donations to the parties, mostly by the rich and corporations -- because they don't want to lose their edge in fundraising. But beyond the politics, what is the purpose of reform? What ends would it serve? Which political values would it strengthen and which would it weaken? In short, what is at stake in campaign-finance reform?
The background: Abuses in campaign finance lay at the bottom of the Watergate scandal. President Nixon signed the Federal Election Campaign Act, which required disclosure of large contributions, in February, 1972, but it did not take effect until April of that year. The Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP) used the interim to pressure corporations and rich givers to contribute anonymously so as to avoid disclosure, while they still could. American Airlines, to take the most flagrant example, contributed millions; Robert Vesco, a convicted Wall Street swindler, put $200,000 in $100 bills into a black attaché case and handed it to a CREEP bagman. These cash contributions were later used to pay for the dirty tricks, including the Watergate break-in itself, that Nixon ordered carried out against his Democratic challengers.
In reaction to this brazen shakedown, among other abuses, a Democratically led Congress passed a campaign-finance reform bill in 1974 that controversially limited the rights of both individuals and groups to contribute to political campaigns. The constitutionality of the law was immediately challenged, and in January, 1976, in a quick ruling in advance of that year's elections, the Supreme Court struck much of it down. "The First Amendment denies government the power," the unsigned opinion in Buckley v. Valeo ruled, "to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise." Money is speech, the justices concluded, and speech is protected under the First Amendment. Somewhat paradoxically, Buckley found that Congress could regulate contributions, which it had set at $1,000 per donor per candidate and $5,000 per donor per political action committee (PAC), but not spending. Rich candidates could exhaust their fortunes running for office. Private groups could buy unlimited amounts of TV time to advocate their views. And no law could stop them.
Since Buckley a soft-money loophole in the 1974 legislation (and a subsequent bill in 1979) has opened the floodgates to corporate, union, and rich contributors: "soft money" goes directly to the parties, not to candidates, who still fall under the 1974 donor restrictions. The debate now is not over "hard money" donations to candidates or PACs. It is over soft money -- what it is doing to American politics, and what the consequences would be of its elimination.
Mr./Ms. President, we are asking you to make a decision on the merits of reform, not on the politics.
Should you support campaign-finance reform? The good-government case that you should is familiar, the libertarian case that you shouldn't less so. Two of your closest advisers have written memos for you, setting out an argument for each side. You'll want to read them before you make your decision. Good luck.
A. Democracy Is at Stake -- Ban Soft Money (Read a memo in favor of Option A.)
B. Money Is Speech -- Keep It Free (Read a memo in favor of Option B.)
All material copyright © 2000 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |