Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, July 5, 1994 TAG: 9407080024
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By JOHN LEWIS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Faced with formidable opposition in the race, I was able to mount a credible and ultimately successful bid for Congress only because of the support given me by labor-union political-action committees and a few other PACs. That's why I have been surprised and dismayed in recent years to see PACs come under such vitriolic attack from many of my friends in the public-interest community. If not for the support of these ``special interests,'' this former civil-rights worker, this poor son of a sharecropper would not have had a prayer of making it to the U.S. House of Representatives.
Political-action committees - especially those of labor unions and ideological groups such as those supporting or opposing abortion rights, gay rights or gun control - give working people and people with little means the ability to participate in the political process. Many of these people who contribute through a ``checkoff,'' or small deduction from their paycheck each week, would effectively be denied participation in the process if it weren't for their union or company PAC.
Let there be no confusion - minorities, women, candidates from poor rural and urban districts are the beneficiaries of PACs. PACs take power and influence out of the hands of the country-club set and put it in the hands of the people who can't afford to write $500 or $1,000 checks. This is one of the reasons PACs were established, and this is exactly why PACs should be protected in any campaign-finance legislation. To do otherwise is to revert to a system controlled by wealthy individuals and the millionaire candidates who bankroll their own campaigns.
Currently, the House and Senate are negotiating over the future campaign-finance laws that are to govern our congressional elections. Among the points of contention is the limit to be placed on PAC contributions. Federal election law now permits candidates to accept contributions of $5,000 in the primary and $5,000 in the general election. The Senate, touting a recent study by the watchdog group Common Cause, has argued that these limits should be cut in half.
Such a move should be resisted. The House-approved bill has already significantly reduced the role of PACs. A reduction in the contribution limit would have a minimal impact on overall contributions and could well doom the prospects for the bill's final passage.Another reason the Senate should drop its opposition to lowering the PAC contribution level is the adverse and disproportionate impact such a move would have on minority candidates.
While the Common Cause study shows that lowering the limit would cost candidates in competitive races 3 percent of their PAC contributions, calculations using the same numbers show that a reduction in the limit would cost members of the Congressional Black Caucus more than twice that amount. Minority candidates have worked too hard and too long to gain equal footing in the political system. Black Caucus and other minority candidates should not be discriminated against in any campaign-finance formula. Indeed, traditionally one of the goals of reform has been to open the political process, not to throw up roadblocks to minority participation.
I believe that Congress will pass a strong campaign-finance reform bill this year. But it cannot be considered true reform if it narrows the scope of who can participate and who can contribute in our political system. Minorities and women have waited far too long to have a voice in Congress. We cannot impede their gains by jeopardizing their future. To ensure that this is a fair process for all, we should not lower the PAC limits.
John Lewis is a Democratic congressman from Georgia.
The Washington Post
by CNB