THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, August 8, 1996 TAG: 9608080008
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A18 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 175 lines
How comforting is it to know that Virginia lawmakers can take a check on Monday from a special-interest group and vote on a bill affecting that group on Tuesday?
About as comforting as creating a nice, soft pallet for the fox inside the henhouse. The ability of legislators to collect donations within days or hours of votes is the latest disturbing disclosure about the state's campaign-finance laws.
As Virginian-Pilot staff writer David Poole points out, 37 state legislators collected $51,605 during last winter's session. The figure soars if you add in donations collected a few weeks before and after the session.
While many or most of those checks may have had no more influence on the process than gifts given in August, the timing is still too close for comfort. There should be a seemly distance between money and votes and that means more than a day or a week. Citizens ought to be permitted at least the illusion that thought has had a chance to intervene.
Clearly, this is a loophole that should be hammered shut. It's not the only one. Those trying to lessen money's distorting grip on politics generally take one of two tacks: either limiting contributions and expenditures or making sure that all the money trails are fully disclosed.
The former strikes at what most people would like to achieve, taking us back to a time when you could run for public office without owning or tapping into a mint. The trouble with that approach has been the cleverness of monied interests in coming up with ways to circumvent it.
If you can give $60,000 to a group virtually certain to spend the money in a candidate's behalf, then it's neither here nor there that you can only donate $1,000 directly to the candidate.
Another impediment to reform has been court decisions protecting political contributions as a free-speech right.
The alternative is making sure that the public has information about how many dollars are being contributed to politicians, on whose behalf and the link between the money and specific votes. In part, painting that portrait is the media's job. But the law can make it more or less difficult.
A House subcommittee is at work on Virginia's umteenth study of campaign-finance reform. We hope their recommendations will be ready for the 1997 session and that they'll be taken more seriously than those from past studies.
The realistic suspicion that money outweighs citizen input in setting public policy may help explain why voters are increasingly disenchanted with politics and turn into nonvoters.
As far as reporting is concerned, Virginia should follow those states that are requiring electronic submissions of campaign-finance reports. New technology can put information about money in voters' hands much more quickly than the current paper system permits.
Too often, elections or issues are already decided before the public has any idea of how money is influencing the process.
That's particularly true of lobbying reports. Not until July does the public find out who was spending big bucks on lobbying in February. Would it have made a difference last winter had we known that Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield was spending $135,000 on its lobbying effort to convert to a for-profit company, while a consumer lobby opposing the transformation spent less than $2,000?
Maybe. Maybe not. But by July, it was too late to matter.
It also handed out $3,500 to six legislators during the session.
Such cheek-to-jowl giving ought to be banned and faster, fuller disclosure should be mandated to let the public know about the rest.
How comforting is it to know that Virginia lawmakers can take a check on Monday from a special-interest group and vote on a bill affecting that group on Tuesday?
About as comforting as creating a nice, soft pallet for the fox inside the henhouse. The ability of legislators to collect donations within days or hours of votes is the latest disturbing disclosure about the state's campaign-finance laws.
As Virginian-Pilot staff writer David Poole points out, 37 state legislators collected $51,605 during last winter's session. The figure soars if you add in donations collected a few weeks before and after the session.
While many or most of those checks may have had no more influence on the process than gifts given in August, the timing is still too close for comfort. There should be a seemly distance between money and votes and that means more than a day or a week. Citizens ought to be permitted at least the illusion that thought has had a chance to intervene.
Clearly, this is a loophole that should be hammered shut. It's not the only one. Those trying to lessen money's distorting grip on politics generally take one of two tacks: either limiting contributions and expenditures or making sure that all the money trails are fully disclosed.
The former strikes at what most people would like to achieve, taking us back to a time when you could run for public office without owning or tapping into a mint. The trouble with that approach has been the cleverness of monied interests in coming up with ways to circumvent it.
If you can give $60,000 to a group virtually certain to spend the money in a candidate's behalf, then it's neither here nor there that you can only donate $1,000 directly to the candidate.
Another impediment to reform has been court decisions protecting political contributions as a free-speech right.
The alternative is making sure that the public has information about how many dollars are being contributed to politicians, on whose behalf and the link between the money and specific votes. In part, painting that portrait is the media's job. But the law can make it more or less difficult.
A House subcommittee is at work on Virginia's umteenth study of campaign-finance reform. We hope their recommendations will be ready for the 1997 session and that they'll be taken more seriously than those from past studies.
The realistic suspicion that money outweighs citizen input in setting public policy may help explain why voters are increasingly disenchanted with politics and turn into nonvoters.
As far as reporting is concerned, Virginia should follow those states that are requiring electronic submissions of campaign-finance reports. New technology can put information about money in voters' hands much more quickly than the current paper system permits.
Too often, elections or issues are already decided before the public has any idea of how money is influencing the process.
That's particularly true of lobbying reports. Not until July does the public find out who was spending big bucks on lobbying in February. Would it have made a difference last winter had we known that Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield was spending $135,000 on its lobbying effort to convert to a for-profit company, while a consumer lobby opposing the transformation spent less than $2,000?
Maybe. Maybe not. But by July, it was too late to matter.
It also handed out $3,500 to six legislators during the session.
Such cheek-to-jowl giving ought to be banned and faster, fuller disclosure should be mandated to let the public know about the rest.
How comforting is it to know that Virginia lawmakers can take a check on Monday from a special-interest group and vote on a bill affecting that group on Tuesday?
About as comforting as creating a nice, soft pallet for the fox inside the henhouse. The ability of legislators to collect donations within days or hours of votes is the latest disturbing disclosure about the state's campaign-finance laws.
As Virginian-Pilot staff writer David Poole points out, 37 state legislators collected $51,605 during last winter's session. The figure soars if you add in donations collected a few weeks before and after the session.
While many or most of those checks may have had no more influence on the process than gifts given in August, the timing is still too close for comfort. There should be a seemly distance between money and votes and that means more than a day or a week. Citizens ought to be permitted at least the illusion that thought has had a chance to intervene.
Clearly, this is a loophole that should be hammered shut. It's not the only one. Those trying to lessen money's distorting grip on politics generally take one of two tacks: either limiting contributions and expenditures or making sure that all the money trails are fully disclosed.
The former strikes at what most people would like to achieve, taking us back to a time when you could run for public office without owning or tapping into a mint. The trouble with that approach has been the cleverness of monied interests in coming up with ways to circumvent it.
If you can give $60,000 to a group virtually certain to spend the money in a candidate's behalf, then it's neither here nor there that you can donate only $1,000 directly to the candidate.
Another impediment to reform has been court decisions protecting political contributions as a free-speech right.
The alternative is making sure that the public has information about how many dollars are being contributed to politicians on whose behalf and the link between the money and specific votes. In part, painting that portrait is the media's job. But the law can make it more or less difficult.
A House subcommittee is at work on Virginia's umteenth study of campaign-finance reform. We hope its recommendations will be ready for the 1997 session and that they'll be taken more seriously than those from past studies.
The realistic suspicion that money outweighs citizen input in setting public policy may help explain why voters are increasingly disenchanted with politics and turn into nonvoters.
As far as reporting is concerned, Virginia should follow those states that are requiring electronic submissions of campaign-finance reports. New technology can put information about money in voters' hands much more quickly than the current paper system permits.
Too often, elections or issues are already decided before the public has any idea of how money is influencing the process.
That's particularly true of lobbying reports. Not until July does the public find out who was spending big bucks on lobbying in February. Would it have made a difference last winter had we known that Trigon Blue Cross Blue Shield was spending $135,000 on its lobbying effort to convert to a for-profit company while a consumer lobby opposing the transformation spent less than $2,000?
Maybe. Maybe not. But by July, it was too late to matter.
Trigon also handed out $3,500 to six legislators during the session.
Such cheek-to-jowl giving ought to be banned and faster, fuller disclosure should be mandated to let the public know about the rest. by CNB