Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, May 11, 1993 TAG: 9305110521
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
The tired old GOP argument is that campaign-finance reform would weaken Republican challengers' chances of overtaking incumbent Democrats, who have majorities in both the House and Senate.
Wrong. Proposed reforms would strengthen challengers' hands, regardless of party, by unloading some of the deck now stacked in favor of incumbents.
The reforms include partial public financing - in the form of vouchers for radio and TV ads, and reduced postal rates for campaign mailings - for candidates who agree to voluntary spending limits. (In a slick touch, Clinton would finance these vouchers by eliminating tax deductions for the Gucci crowd: congressional lobbyists.)
Only if spending limits were set far lower than anyone has suggested would challengers be hurt by inability to get their "message" out.
Moreover, Clinton proposes to reduce the buying power of political-action committees and special-interest groups. Their money now flows disproportionately, and profusely, to incumbents who can grease legislative wheels.
Does anyone still doubt that PACs and special-interest groups are able to buy access and influence that average voters don't enjoy? Would anyone still argue that a system that keeps politicians on the - pardon the expression - dole isn't corrupting democracy?
Indeed, no. That's why campaign-finance reform has been elevated to the top of the public's agenda for "change" in Washington. And we remind Sen. Dole that many Republican challengers (as well as Clinton and Democrats) went on the stump for it in last year's elections.
The president's package, which resembles one passed last year only to be vetoed by former President Bush, is not perfect. To satisfy House Speaker Thomas Foley, for instance, it does not reduce the current limit ($5,000) on PAC contributions for House candidates. At the same time, it cuts PAC donations to $1,000 from $5,000 for presidential candidates, and cuts the PAC limit for Senate candidates to $2,500. It also leaves other loopholes for PACs.
Congress ought to close these - and if Dole is smart, he'll use his newfound clout to insist the package be strengthened, not to obstruct its passage.
It's simple, as Ross Perot might say. This package would help level the playing field for challengers; thus, the minority Republicans (though not, of course, the ones already in Congress) would be the likelier beneficiaries.
House Democrats know that, which is why they want PAC loopholes. Many Democratic lawmakers feigned high-mindedness last year and voted for campaign-finance reform, comfortable in the knowledge that Bush would veto it. This year, they've got a president who's in favor of it - and, in their heart of hearts, you know they're hoping for a GOP filibuster to derail the train.
Dole could do his party a big favor - and scare some Democrats to death in the bargain - if he were to get on board.
Meanwhile, lawmakers in both parties might take note of recent polls that suggest support for Perot is growing. The message ought to be plain: The public is still angry and frustrated with the political system, and is still demanding change.
Despite their flaws, the Clinton proposals would mark genuine and welcome change. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress ought to be backing the reforms.
by CNB