Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, August 9, 1994 TAG: 9408250066
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Well, that's the stated issue, anyway.
The Senate has passed reform legislation that would outlaw PAC gifts altogether. A House-passed bill would set a limit of $10,000 per PAC per candidate, and House negotiators say they won't budge below that bottom line.
A recent Common Cause study shows another bottom line:
Political action committees contributed more than $43 million to House incumbents in the 15-month period that ended March 1994. PAC money accounted for 45 percent of the incumbents' total fund-raising.
Challengers, by way of contrast, received $922,844 from PACs - or 5 percent of their total funding during that period.
Could satisfaction with the status quo, which helped keep in office those earnest public representatives now debating the campaign-finance legislation, have something to do with the latest congressional deadlock on reform?
Nah. Silly thought.
Still, as it happens, the Senate doesn't seem to be bargaining with any better faith than the House is. An outright ban on PAC gifts, as passed by the Senate, would probably be ruled unconstitutional, and the senators know it. The real route to reform is to limit PAC contributions to the same cap imposed on individuals.
Reform, unfortunately, seems less than a top priority for many members of Congress. Confronted with a president who, unlike his predecessor, will actually sign reform legislation passed by lawmakers, they are grasping for excuses to avoid action.
The money chase, meanwhile, goes on.
U.S. Sen. Charles Robb opposes banning PAC gifts, but also voted last year for a reform package that included a ban. Now he invites Washington lobbyists to a $5,000 per-plate dinner to meet the White House chief of staff. Just a friendly get-together, of course.
His Republican challenger, Oliver North, has built a bulging campaign war chest, but with less than 20 percent of its riches coming from Virginians. (North has raised more money in California than in the state he wants to represent.)
Independent candidate Douglas Wilder's grandly announced refusal of PAC contributions must be regarded as a late, convenient and ambiguous conversion to political rectitude, considering (1) his happy acceptance of such gifts in past campaigns, (2) the fact that PACS are unlikely to give in any significant amounts to his independent Senate effort anyway, and (3) his continued refusal to fully disclose the disposition of $1 million left over from contributions to his gubernatorial inaugural fund.
Political posturing, like PACs, cannot be banned. But is there no limit? Surely there should be. It's time for meaningful campaign-finance reform, so that voters might enjoy more political leverage vis-a-vis the moneyed special interests.
by CNB