OCR Text |
Show Hinckley Journal of Politics Autumn 1998 • Banning "soft money" donations. • Spending limits on campaigns in exchange for free or reduced-priced advertising. • More public financing of campaigns. Many Republicans prefer the following: • Prohibiting labor unions from spending compulsory union dues on political activities. • Raising limits on individual donations. • Restricting donations from PACs. (AllPolitics 1997) The McCain-Feingold Bile The most noticeable proposal to come from the halls of Congress in the last few years is the McCain-Feingold bill, sponsored by Arizona Republican Senator John McCain and Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russell Feingold, and endorsed by campaign watch group Common Cause. The main provisions of the bill include: Soft Money • A ban on soft money contributions to the national parties from individuals, corporations, and labor unions. PACs (Political Action Committees) • PAC contribution caps would be lowered from $5,000 per candidate per candidate per election to $2,500. Independent Expenditures • Spending by groups determined to be in direct support ("express advocacy") of a federal candidate would come under federal regulation and would require full disclosure. Lowered Campaign Spending • Candidates that raise 60 percent of their funds from instate sources, and who agree to limit their own spending ($25,000 per election in small states, $50,000 per election in large states) would be granted 30 minutes of free TV time; reduced costs for advertising; and breaks on direct mail costs. Leveled Playing Field • In races where one of the candidates does not abide by the spending limits, the other candidate would be permitted to accept individual contribution up to $2,000, PAC donations up to $5,000, and additional] party funds. No Overseas Contributions • No contributions would be allowed from citizens ineligible to vote in U.S. elections. (Washington Post, February 20, 1995. From AllPolitics 1997.) Opposition to the McCaini-Feingold Bill Earlier versions of the McCain-Feingold bill failed to gain the support needed to pass the House and Senate. Although there is some bipartisan support, most Republicans remain in opposition. They claim that the bill is unconstitutional, basing their objections on the Supreme Court's rulings in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission (1996). According to an article in the Washington Post, February 20, 1995, to refute these claims, "McCain-Feingold supporters... produced a letter signed by 126 constitutional scholars attesting to the constitutionality of banning soft money." Republicans also have contended that the bill "would tilt the playing field toward the Democrats, who they say benefited from labor unions' $35 million ad campaign in 1996 congressional races." To limit these kinds of expenditures, the GOP wants to "ban.. .labor spending compulsory union dues on political activities," a ban which Democrats oppose. Additionally, Republicans say that McCain-Feingold, if passed as it currently stands, "would increase the influence of the media" in elections by "placing greater limits on campaign spending." Many Republicans claim that the media tend to "lean" toward the Democrats, and as a result, many feel that the proposed limits "would restrict their ability to get their message out" (Washington Post 1995). Praise for the McCain-Feingold Bill Since 1995, the McCain-Feingold proposal has been seen by many as the best chance to make a positive change in the area of campaign finance. Despite the opposition, many are optimistic that the bill will do a great deal to reform the current system. One such supporter, as reported in Roll Call dated November 1995, called the measure "a significant move in the right direction, if only because both parties are at the table__It's a true compromise-a rarity, it seems__It should serve as a framework for immediate action__ The Kansas City Star, October 1, 1995, carried the statement: "At long last there appears to be light at the end of the tunnel for congressional campaign finance reform __ The latest effort ... should lift this issue above the partisan bickering that has held back an overhaul of campaign finance reform." The Boston Globe, October 22, 1995, reported: "Among the current proposals, McCain's goes farthest toward the changes essential to restoring credibility to the elective process, setting up a system of voluntary spending limits and restricting the influence of corporations and other big-money interests." In October of 1997 President Clinton called the McCain-Feingold measure the "best chance" to move forward with reform, saying that he would "fight for this measure as hard as necessary, for as long as necessary" (quoted in the White House at Work 1997) Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) believes that in order to get any significant legislation passed, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers will '"have to give up their quests for political advantage.'" '"Both sides,'" he continued, '"are going to have to get their oxes gored. And I don't know if they've matured their negotiating positions enough to do that'" (quoted in Jenkins 1997). But the latest reports seem to indicate that those officials who benefit from leaving campaign finance laws as they are, are doing just that. The Defeat of the McCain-Feingold Bill On February 26, 1998, the Senate once again killed any pos- 25 |