THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 14, 1996 TAG: 9607120025
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 56 lines
Soon we may be able to emboss the words ``National Millionaires Club'' over the seal of the U.S. Senate.
According to Roll Call, an independent newspaper that covers Congress, at least 18 of this year's crop of Senate challengers and open-seat candidates are millionaires. The wealthiest may be our own Mark Warner, the Democratic nominee against Republican incumbent John Warner, who is also (what else?) a millionaire.
In part this is a reflection of the piecemeal nature of campaign-finance reform and an example of how the law of unintended consequences works.
Two decades ago in the wake of Watergate, Congress limited direct contributions to candidates, curtailed the amount wealthy candidates could spend in their own behalf and set overall spending limits in campaigns.
But in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the spending portion of that equation. Contribution limits, set at $1,000 per individual and $5,000 per political-action committee per election, were allowed to stand. But the limits on contributions from one's own purse and the overall spending limits were scrapped.
Among the consequences: candidates now must finance multimillion-dollar campaigns in small increments. That grueling prospect deters many whose personal bank accounts aren't large. Hence, a stable of millionaires.
One plan scheduled for debate in the House of Representatives this week would allow larger gifts. But such a change would have another undesirable effect - the further elevation in political influence of wealthy contributors.
The best alternative is legislation by Reps. Linda Smith, R-Wash.; Chris Shays, R-Conn.; and Marty Meehan, D-Mass. It tackles two problems that both Republicans and Democrats say they oppose: the use of so-called ``soft money'' to skirt contribution limits and the proliferation of Washington political-action committee fund raisers.
``Soft money'' is money given to the nonelection bank accounts of national political committees. Because the funds aren't for direct use in campaigns, the usual limitations on giving don't apply. But the money often winds up benefiting the party's federal candidates.
As University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato noted in his recent book, Dirty Little Secrets, ``There are now so many ways to arrange hidden expenditures and off-the-books electoral activities that the true total of money raised and spent for the 1996 presidential candidates will almost certainly be double or even several times the officially reported totals.''
It's uncertain that the House leadership will allow the bill to become part of this week's campaign-spending debate, but it should.
Money is such a powerful force in American politics that many of those who have it are unwilling to give up the advantage. If nothing else, the nation's leaders should embrace the modest changes contemplated in the Smith-Shays-Meehan bill.
Perhaps then we can go forward with other reforms, such as finding a way to let the millions of Americans who aren't millionaires compete on a relatively level playing field with those who are. by CNB