ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, February 9, 1997 TAG: 9702120045
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARK E. RUSH
IN THE CRIES for sweeping campaign-finance reform, one subject is lacking: What, exactly, do we wish to regulate? The commonplace answers are "corruption" or "influence." If challenged, however, the average advocate of campaign-finance reform would be hard-pressed to define clearly what he or she had in mind.
American political history is riddled with reforms delivering little except unintended consequences. In 1968, for example, calls went out to reform the presidential-nomination process and Congress. We wanted to break the hold of party bosses and party insiders who dominated party conventions. We wanted to rid Congress of the extraordinary influence wielded by conservative, senior Southerners who had blocked civil- rights legislation.
But the ensuing reforms tried to solve problems of the character or political agendas of elected and party officials by establishing new procedural rules or institutional reforms. They were the wrong means to address the problem. To break the strength of the Southern congressmen, for example, the Democrats (who had overwhelming control of both houses in the late 1960s and early 1970s) stripped the leadership and committee chairs of much of their power. Thus, to deny power to the Southerners, they emasculated every potential leader in Congress.
Similarly, to break the hold of party regulars who had ensured the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 of Hubert Humphrey (who did not run in any primaries) despite the candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy (who did run in primaries), reformers again "democratized" the nomination process. They stripped party leaders of their powers and influence, and passed new campaign-finance regulations that freed candidates to raise money independently and seek nominations without relying on party organization or adhering to party ideologies.
What were the results of the ensuing reforms? The Democrats suffered a series of disastrous nominees, divided conventions and primary races filled with candidates of questionable quality or capability. Voters expressed new complaints about the weakening and unresponsiveness of parties, the undefeatability of incumbents, congressional irresponsibility, and the absence of any real debate about political issues during presidential campaigns and an excessive focus on candidates' character and personalities.
In fact, the voters are the real source of the problems that plague the political process, and of the solutions. We are lazy: Instead of exercising the responsibilities of citizenship, we seek to come up with nice, tidy rules that will ensure the benefits of democracy without having to engage in the necessary work and vigilance that such benefits require.
The best current example is the term-limits movement. Instead of simply voting incumbents out of office, we seek to stick an expiration date on them That way, we can remove anyone who might be corrupted by power. The problem, of course, is that we will remove virtuous legislators as well.
The thoughtful, responsible solution to corrupt politicians would be to vote them out of office - while working hard to re-elect the good ones. This, however, requires time and energy to learn about what elected legislators are doing and what their challengers promise, and to work for challengers running against incumbents who have failed us.
The cries for campaign-finance reform include calls to reduce corruption (if not the appearance of it); to reduce the influence of interest groups, PACS and money; and to open up the process so "average" citizens can run for national office. A most effective manner to combat legislators who are corrupt would be to elect and re-elect candidates who are not. By imposing more restrictions on campaign contributions, we will make it harder for even the best challengers to raise enough funds to defeat even the worst incumbents.
The desire to reduce the influence of interest groups is equally counterproductive. There are thousands of interest groups competing to gain the ear of legislators. Competition limits their impact. What we dislike is that interest groups - which are simply aggregations of motivated, interested citizens - are more influential than citizens who are uninterested or unmotivated. In the same way that we are willing to limit the careers of good legislators in order to throw out bad ones, campaign-finance reformers seek to limit the impact of active citizens in order to enhance that of the inactive. Is this not counterproductive?
Reform in the United States continues to be driven by a quixotic vision of the "average" citizen who should be able to participate in the governing process in the same way as members of ancient Greek city-states or New England town meetings once did. Yet, regardless of the rules and restrictions that we place on those who are politically active, "average" citizens are not going to gain much political influence unless they - like the Athenians or the New Englanders -inform themselves and invest their time in politics.
Placing new or modified limits on political spending and contributions will do little to enhance the quality of public debate or candidates. If such changes make it easier and cheaper for "anyone" to run for office, then virtually anyone will - and the result will be a more widespread version of primaries and campaigns full of candidates comparable to the Seven Dwarfs. If voters were unhappy with this sort of campaign before, why will they be any happier with it now?
Furthermore, no reform will put an end to influence peddling. Some groups or individuals will always have a disproportionate impact on the political process because they are willing to spend their own time or resources (or pool their more modest resources with others) to become effective political actors. This is the price of liberty - so why call it "corruption?"
"Average" citizens complain that "corruption" perverts the political process because politicians may change their mind when organized interests gain their ear. In fact, the average voter has little to complain about in this respect. While we criticize the candidate who might change the way he or she votes to please some interest group or political-action committee, we nonetheless expect candidates to engage in this same sort of behavior to please their voting constituents.Those same "average" voters may have the same "corrupting" influence on a candidate insofar they may vote against their true beliefs to ensure reelection. So what's the difference?
We condemn the legislator who changes her vote on the trade bill to maintain the support of a few powerful backers. Is she acting any differently from the candidate who, wishing to ensure re-election, changes his position on abortion in order to cater the opinions of a majority in his district? In either case, the legislator is bartering political principles for political support and influence.
No amount of campaign-finance reform is going to change human nature. If we want to improve the caliber of our electoral process, I suggest that we remove all limits on political spending and contributions.
In the political process, money is comparable to speech. We don't penalize the eloquent for being more convincing, so we should not penalize those who seek to substitute money or commitment to political activism for eloquence. Responsible, informed citizens ought to be able to distinguish good ideas from bad regardless of the eloquence or volume with which they are presented.
Get involved in politics. If "average" citizens do not exercise their rights to participate in the political process, they have no justification to complain when the process does not satisfy them. Politics is hard work. Placing limits on those who are successful at it will do little to make the work easier or better.
Mark E. Rush is an associate professor of politics at Washington and Lee University.
LENGTH: Long : 128 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: ED FRESKE/Cleveland Plain Dealerby CNB