ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, July 5, 1996 TAG: 9607050023
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD SINCERE
ACCORDING TO a report in The Hill, a weekly newspaper that covers Congress, a group of House Republican, including Majority Whip Tom DeLay, has broken with Speaker Newt Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey on the issue of campaign-finance reform.
Gingrich and Armey have endorsed a plan to prohibit political-action committees from giving money to congressional candidates. The Hill reports in its May 29 edition that "dozens of rank-and-file Republicans ... have denounced the proposal."
Good for them. These Republicans are risking their careers, by challenging the House leadership, on a question of principle.
What principle might that be? After all, PACs are widely derided as the root of corruption in politics, since they channel campaign contributions to candidates from businesses, labor unions and other special-interest groups.
That is precisely why they are valuable. It is an unassailable, fundamental tradition of American politics for individuals to come together, on the basis of shared interests, to form groups with the intention of influencing political and social affairs. We are guaranteed this right of association by the First Amendment. To deny this is to call into question the validity of our basic political freedoms.
PACs began to be created in the mid-1970s, in the wake of two major campaign "reform" packages and the Watergate scandal. Previously, candidates were permitted to accept contributions from individuals, business corporations, labor unions, trade associations, political parties, and other groups and institutions. The new federal laws - which, incidentally, established the bureaucracy and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Commission - required such groups to establish separate committees to funnel campaign funds and set strict contribution limits. Individual contributions are limited to $1,000 per campaign, while PAC contributions are limited to $5,000.
Those limits have not changed since 1974, even though the cost of running a political campaign has risen significantly. As a result, politicians - both incumbents and challengers - must devote the bulk of their time to fund raising, rather than the vital job of meeting voters and expressing their views on the issues.
Campaign-finance "reform" has had the perverse effect of strengthening the incentives to seek funds from any and all sources, with candidates feeling forced to make promises to many different special interests just to keep their campaigns afloat.
A second result is that highly qualified, highly motivated citizens are deterred from participating in the political process as candidates because fund raising has become so distasteful. This is the major reason that Jack Kemp refused to throw his hat into the ring for this year's presidential contest. Kemp represents only the tip of the iceberg of concerned citizens who fail to contribute their time and talent because campaign laws discourage them.
The best campaign-finance reform would be to eliminate contribution limits altogether, while requiring strict reporting of the sources of contributions. Campaign-finance reports would be available for the press and public to examine. Such scrutiny would alert voters to any "funny business" and would inform us when special interests might have unseemly influence over a particular candidate.
Politicians could be judged by their votes and their actions: Has Bob Dole introduced legislation particularly beneficial to Archer Daniels Midland, after that company has given him millions of dollars in campaign contributions? Has Ted Kennedy voted in lockstep with the AFL-CIO, after labor unions have given him millions? Does the chairman of the House Education Committee take contributions from the National Education Association, or from the Home School Legal Defense Fund? If so, how does it affect his performance? These questions can be asked and answered in the full light of day.
This is the system that Virginia law provides for state and local elections. Virginia has no limits on contributions, but campaign-finance reports are open to public scrutiny. During campaign years, these reports must be filed on a frequent and regular basis. Local newspapers draw attention to any "red flags" that arise. This gives opponents and voters an opportunity to question and challenge candidates on the basis of their campaign finding sources.
Campaign-contribution limits force candidates to become beggars when they should be taking their case to the voters. If the limits are lifted, candidates will be better able to do their job and voters will be better able to judge them on their merits - and therefore make better choices on Election Day.
That is why the House Republicans who are challenging Gingrich deserve praise and encouragement. They have demonstrated both independence and integrity by taking a stand on principle.
Richard Sincere of Arlington is chairman of the Libertarian Party of Virginia.
LENGTH: Medium: 94 lines KEYWORDS: POLITICSby CNB