Byron York: It’s time (again) for the Campaign Finance Reform Follies

Democrats, despite their image as the party of the little guy, were deeply dependent on big-money donors to keep the party afloat. Yet they supported reform, even though it would work against them by forbidding those big-money donors from giving their big money directly to the Democratic Party.

Republicans, on the other hand, despite their image as the party of plutocrats, actually had far more small-money donors than Democrats. But they opposed reform, even though it would help them by making small-money donors the key to party finance.

Back then, one could argue, both sides based their positions on principle. What other explanation was there, since those positions seemed inimical to their own interests?

These days, the issue is what to do with the 527s, those giant outside-the-party organizations that made campaign finance a whole different game in 2004.

There was America Coming Together, the huge pro-Democratic turnout organization funded by George Soros and his friends. On the other side, there was the much smaller — but vastly more effective — Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the anti-Kerry group funded by T. Boone Pickens, Bob Perry and a lot of small donors.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has always felt the Federal Election Commission (FEC) should have cracked down on the 527s. But the commission wouldn’t go along with McCain’s wishes, so now, true to form, McCain wants to pass legislation to regulate the groups, limiting contributions to $25,000 per person, per year.

And this time, a lot of Sen. McCain’s Republican colleagues are going along with him.

When I wrote a story on the subject recently for National Review, key congressional aides told me that regulating 527s will undoubtedly have majority GOP support in both the House and Senate.

Here’s what one Senate aide said: “Members believe that 527s are a bad thing, gnawing away at the vitals of our majority, and that what McCain supports means their elimination. No doubt the bad guys will just find another section of the tax code to abuse for anonymous giving and deadly attacks against Republicans, but for now, since Republicans don’t like them, and McCain is scared to death about what they could do against him come primary time in ’08, there’s a marriage of convenience under way.”

Marriage of convenience? What happened to the GOP’s high-minded principle of protecting political expression?

The flip-flop bothers those in the party who opposed McCain-Feingold on principle and who now — on the same principle — oppose cutting off money to the 527s.

Among them is Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who, along with Rep. Albert Wynn (D-Md.), has proposed an alternative plan. Instead of cracking down on 527s, Pence and Wynn would free up contributors to give to more candidates and more party organizations.

“To the extent that 527s have found an effective way to participate in the American political process with greater freedom than the major political parties and outside organizations,” Pence told me, “then what we ought to do is, rather than restrain the 527s, we should give greater freedom to political parties and outside organizations.”

Pence is a realist; he knows what’s going on. “There are many of my colleagues who are experiencing withering daily assaults from the 527s,” he told me. “They have been brought to the place where practical politics and principle collide.”

Outside Congress, conservatives share Pence’s disappointment. “From a conservative standpoint, it’s clearly wrong to jump on the regulatory bandwagon for what’s perceived as short-term partisan gain,” Bradley Smith, the former FEC chairman who has been one of McCain-Feingold’s chief critics, told me.

“The standard mantra you hear from the Republican side is, ‘I opposed McCain-Feingold, but now it’s the law, so we’ve got to crack down on the 527s,’” Smith continued. “Why aren’t they saying, ‘I opposed McCain-Feingold, it’s not working, so why don’t we roll back McCain-Feingold and put the parties back on an even footing’?”

Now, it should be said that the Republican role reversal on all this has been accompanied by an equally sincere reversal on the Democratic side. Democrats who used to be passionate advocates of reform now deeply believe in protecting the right of political expression for Soros and his colleagues.

Still behind in the race for small contributors, they are terrified of losing their mega-donors.

They shouldn’t worry. We all know that if Congress does snuff out the 527s, the Soroses and Peter Lewises and Stephen Bings of the world — and the T. Boone Pickenses and Bob Perrys, too — will find other ways to pump money into the 2008 presidential race.

But why make them? Why not just scrap McCain-Feingold and allow them to give money to the Democratic and Republican parties?

York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
E-mail: byork@nationalreview.com

here's my idea for campaign finance 'reform'

1.scrap all campaign finance laws including those on matching funds

2.allow only those to contribute to the candidate that are legally allowed to vote for the candidate

I'll never forget when McCain appeared on TV soon after Bush signed the bill into law, and was asked about 527s or whatever, and he said "This isn't a one-time thing, we will have to make new laws forever" (I'm paraphrasing.) I sat there and laughed bitterly, because his obsession over regulating this stuff gave him this glassy-eyed look while he smiled. He didn't seem to realize how nutty he sounded (and I like McCain in many ways) because Chrissy Matthews was giving him the goo-goo eyes while he said it.

Chrissy Matthews was giving him the goo-goo eyes while he said it.

Like all good socialists, Chrissy yearns for the day when everything is under government 'control'. Chaos, and bloggers, terrify poor Chrisy.

2.allow only those to contribute to the candidate that are legally allowed to vote for the candidate

I've been advocating that for years. It would do away with the lobbyists. It would do away with people like Hillary and her PAC sticking her big ankles in elections she should not be meddling in. It would stop members of Congress from running all over the country as they try to raise money from people that they don't represent. It would make memebrs of Congress focus only on the people they represent. It would shoot the number of people registered to vote and who votes through the roof since the candidates would be accessable. It would allow new candidates to run because they would be on more even footing with the incumbent. People would become more interested in the process because they would have the power the founders intended that voters have.

Newt Gingrich has been pushing this idea too. There is no downside for the voter that I can see.

The Swift Boat Vets were a bunch of little guys who got together to confront the big guys.

There is no other way to look at it.

McCain hated them. He is author of an open assault on the First Ammendment.

Anyone who votes against 527's while leaving McCain Feingold in place can be assured that I will never vote for him. Not for dog catcher, not for anything.

Guys like Soros have no problem working the system to get their money into it. What McCain is doing is making it increasingly complicated, which impacts individuals more than it does the well-moneyed. The well-moneyed like Soros have no problem hiring attorneys, setting up front organizations, hiring PR firms, in order to work the system and navigate the myriad laws. The Clintons have violated campaign finance laws with impunity; they continue to be above the law. Its people like the Vets, or like you and me who are most likely to get snagged.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.