ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Tuesday, March 11, 1997 TAG: 9703110071
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: HARRIETT WOODS
THE HUE AND cry over White House involvement in Democratic fund raising threatens to obscure the real problem: a campaign-finance system that forces the relentless pursuit of more and more private money.
Every elected official knows what it means to romance financial supporters in order to pay the campaign bills. Those now wagging their fingers at the White House should re-read the ridiculous laws that govern America's campaign conduct. The core problem in Washington, D.C., isn't corruption; it's hypocrisy.
When I ran for the U.S. Senate from Missouri, I learned the hard way what it means to raise big bucks in a race against a well-financed incumbent. I complained constantly that instead of discussing issues with voters, three-fourths of my time was spent in small rooms asking for money. When I narrowly lost the general election, it taught me a lesson. In my next race, I was ready to look anyone in the eye and ask for $1,000. That's the price of admission to big-time American politics.
Almost $2 billion was spent on congressional and presidential campaigns in 1996. The cost of the average congressional race was $600,000, with House Speaker Newt Gingrich blowing out all gauges by raising $6,229,622. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said it plainly when responding to criticism about the special access he provided for $100,000-plus donors: Giving individuals the opportunity to make donations ``is the American way.''
Is that what Americans want? That's the vital question amid the hue and cry about who slept in which White House bedroom. President Clinton's denials of wrongdoing will be thoroughly examined by congressional committees. Americans should focus on his candid statements about a campaign-finance system that creates incredible pressures to raise ever more money to stay competitive.
``You know, we're all in a lather up here in Washington these days about campaign contributions,'' the president said.'' Everybody hates them, but nobody wants to go to public funding. So we seem destined to some period of hand-wringing.''
America has shadow-danced for years with proposals to change our dollar-driven system. Every generation or so, public dissatisfaction erupts, and laws or state initiatives pick at the problem, only to have private money, like a powerful river, carve new paths to influence. When contributions to candidates were capped to hold down excesses, contributions flowed around that barrier to political parties to be spent as ``soft money'' for election activities supposedly unrelated to specific candidates. Some $250 billion in ``soft money'' went to the Democratic and Republican parties in 1996. Talk abut excess!
In June 1995, Clinton and Gingrich shook hands on setting up a high-level commission to come to grips with campaign-finance reform. In the '96 elections, reform was on the lips of many candidates. Nothing much has happened. There are a couple of bipartisan campaign-finance bills in the hopper, but the advocacy group Common Cause sees so little will to action in Congress that it has announced a petition campaign to generate public pressure.
The proposed legislation would do such things as limit PACs, eliminate soft-money donations and provide free and discounted television time. That's just tinkering around the edges; it won't stop the river. A new organization, Public Campaign, would. It's opening a campaign for fundamental reform with an option for candidates to receive ``clean money'' - public funds - if they voluntarily agree to reject private financing, accept spending limits and shorten campaigns.
Elected officials seem to believe that American voters like to hear about campaign-finance reform but don't care whether anything is done about it. They cite public-opinion surveys that show reform isn't a top voter priority. They need to read further; Americans despise the present system.
A major research study for the Center for Responsive Politics in the summer of 1996 showed citizens feeling strongly that:
Campaigns are too long and too expensive.
Special interests have a bigger voice than average citizens because of donations.
Candidates spend too much time raising money.
Good candidates can't run or win because of campaign costs.
And despite the views of most political pundits, Americans do support public funding. Check out a Gallup Poll from last fall, when 65 percent said it's a good idea for the government to provide the money and prohibit all private contributions. The last thing most incumbent politicians want is a level playing field for their challengers. They may complain about all the fund raising, but they're unlikely to do more than plug a few loopholes under pressure.
If Americans don't like coffees in the White House as political favors, or dollars-for-access weekends by senators, they must summon the anger and determination to change a system that bases election on the endless pursuit of private dollars.
HARRIETT WOODS,a Democrat, is former lieutenant governor of Missouri.
- KNIGHT-RIDDER/TRIBUNE
LENGTH: Medium: 93 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICSby CNB