Armageddon for the GOP? Hardly

National politics will survive the Shays-Meehan campaign-finance reform bill, which passed the House last week and is likely to become law soon. If it curbs money in politics at all, the effect will probably be slight. And Republicans shouldn't be alarmed, despite House Speaker Dennis Hastert's claim that Shays-Meehan could produce Armageddon for them. In truth, there's a better chance the measure will aid Republicans in winning the White House, Senate, and House, rather than impede them.

But first consider what was averted: a sweeping reform measure. In 1994, both the Senate and House approved legislation imposing partial taxpayer funding of congressional elections and campaign spending limits, banning soft money, and putting draconian limits on independent issue ads. Only a clever Senate filibuster (blocking the appointment of Senate conferees to a ouse-Senate conference) engineered by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky kept the bill from being signed into law. It was "a total government takeover of federal elections," says Mr. McConnell, the bete noire of campaign reformers. But it died.

Shays-Meehan pales in comparison. While it bans soft, or nonregulated, money, there are large loopholes. It clamps down on issue advertising but less severely than did the 1994 legislation. And it does what reform groups such as Common Cause, the liberal lobby, most abhor. It raises to $2,000 from $1,000 the limit on hard money, which goes directly to candidates and can be spent however they please. Also, the ceiling on hard money donations by a single individual increases to $95,000 from $75,000. Both increases are indexed for inflation.

So at best what reformers have won is a modest victory. And on what's most important in campaign finance -- hard money -- they've lost ground. In the broad scheme of federal elections, the reform movement is still far from achieving its ultimate goal of driving out all private money and having public financing for all federal election campaigns.

Things may get worse -- or better, depending on your perspective. Mr. McConnell and a team of Republican election law experts are working up a lawsuit challenging the ban on soft money and the prohibition on independent issue ads within 60 days of an election. The latter is undoubtedly an unconstitutional limit on political speech and will probably be struck down. There's also a remote chance the federal courts will rule the soft money ban is a violation of the freedom of association. If both were tossed out, the result would be victory beyond the wildest dreams of Republicans: legislation that allows more hard money and does little else.

Let's examine the four most significant parts of Shays-Meehan -- hard money, soft money, loopholes, issue ads -- and see how they're likely to play out. The first is hard money, the mother's milk of GOP campaigns. The fundraising numbers for 2001 tell the sad story for Democrats, though the Republican and Democratic congressional campaign committees were not that far apart in collecting soft money. House Republicans had a 5 to 3 edge over Democrats in soft money but raised $40 million in hard money to $16 million for Democrats. In the Senate, Republicans raised $24 million in soft money to $23 million for Democrats, but the gap in hard money was far wider, $29 million for Republicans, $14 million for Democrats.

Why the GOP edge? A lot of it has to do with the base of the parties. For Republicans, it's Main Street, professional people, the well-to-do, and those who don't benefit from government programs. They tend to donate hard money. For Democrats, their base is union members, low-income people, and to a lesser extent, a growing segment of the very wealthy. The poor don't have money to give, union members give through union dues, and the wealthy are chiefly a source of soft money donations.

In short, Republicans have a built-in advantage on hard money. Democratic national chairman Terry McAuliffe says he'll work to overcome it, and he's as good a fundraiser as Democrats have ever had. But Democrats have been striving for decades to match GOP success in locating steady donors of hard money and have fallen woefully short.

On soft money, however, they've gained near-parity with Republicans. Corporations often split their donations between the parties, and Democrats have exclusive sources as well, such as Hollywood and trial lawyers. The trouble is Shays-Meehan ends soft money donations to the national parties. But because of loopholes, the situation is hardly hopeless.

The Congressional Black Caucus insisted on an amendment that permits members of Congress to raise money for nonprofit groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Both Republicans and Democrats are sure to exploit this. Instead of raising money for their parties, they'll now raise it for nominally independent groups allied with them on issues. In turn, these groups will finance TV issue ads that none-too-subtly boost GOP or Democratic candidates.

Another loophole lets individuals give $10,000 in soft money to state parties -- all 50 of them, if the donor wishes -- and to local parties, too. To exploit this, the national parties merely need to direct high-dollar donors to states where their candidates need help. No doubt they'll do this. And because of the two loopholes, the amount of soft money raised in 2003, the first year Shays-Meehan would go into effect, may decline little or not at all.

In an odd way, the legislation also helps Republicans on issue ads. In the 2000 presidential race, Democrats had a distinct edge in this area. The NAACP, Sierra Club, and abortion-rights groups ran ads against George W. Bush, but there were few issue ads attacking Al Gore. With Shays-Meehan in effect, Republicans will not only raise soft money for conservative or other sympathetic groups, they'll do this with the expectation that those groups will back them at election time with issue ads.

As it stands, the legislation says only political action committees, which must register with the federal government and accept spending limits, can air issue ads in the final 60 days of a campaign. But it's unlikely the courts will accept such an affront to the First Amendment. The best guess is that issue ads will be legal and will flourish.

There's a final question about campaign-finance reform. Why would Democrats support a measure that may hurt them politically and Republicans oppose a bill that may help? Ideology and the press play a role here. Democrats -- the liberals anyway -- believe a Washington free of the influence of corporations would be fertile ground for liberal governance. They think, John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, "the reason their wonderful ideas for controlling and managing America do not become law is solely due to rich people and corporations. . . . Get the money out and wonderful new regulations will flow." When the New York Times and Washington Post editorialize along these lines, they salute.

Republicans don't. Their animus against campaign-finance reform stems from their view of government. Whatever can be done free of government control -- elections, say -- should be left in the hands of civil society or the private sector. What the media think leaves them cold. Shays-Meehan won't vindicate either. It won't change the campaign equation that much, but whatever impact it has should leave Republicans pleasantly surprised.

While I disagree with Campaign Finance Reform, especially the limitations placed on ads run in the last 60 days of a cammpaign, Fred Barnes doesnt think this bill is going to have that much of an impact, especially after the courts get through with it. The Non-Severability issue that CFR proponents fought so hard for may be there achilles hill. It may be that by the time the law becomes effective, the only change would be the hard money increase. Other aspects may be knowcked down by the courts. CFR may be a plus for the Republicans even though a loss for the constitution.

If this becomes law, it will be a race to the courthouse. I don't have any doubt that the Democrats have a plan to sue to have it overturned.

Why? Because they will have already scoped out the US District Courts and will have made a determination which one has a friendly Clinton appointee on the bench.

The idea will be to be the first to file so that they control the forum. Then they can put up a half-hearted case so that it increases the chances that they will get a ruling by the judge affirming the constitutionality of this law.

I think many of these provisions are clearly unconstitutional, but it makes it harder for the Republicans to win on those issues if the lower courts have ruled against them. Not impossible, but certainly more difficult.

CFR may be a plus for the Republicans even though a loss for the constitution.

The problem with CFR is that democrats actually believe their lies. Even Barnes believes that super rich people are Republicans and only some super rich are Democrats. That is what he says in his article. He implies that corporations are run by republicans. That also is not true.

Lets start with the high tech. Bill Gates is a Democrat. The president of Oracle is a Democrat. The president of Sun is a Democrat. The reason for the MS case in court was Democrat doners got Clinton to go after Demcorat Gates who was not a big doner Democrats.

Ok that is high tech. How about old TEch. Well the President and Chairman of Ford Motors is a Democrat as was his father. Ok That is the auto industy. The president of GE is a democrat. This is the largest Old tech there is. How about wall street. Well the President of Merril Lynch is a Democrat. Do Brokerage firms come bigger than Merril Lynch? How about old money.... Has anybody checked out those folks who are as rich as Rockefeller because they ARE Rockefellers? Right. They are Democrats. How about old railroad money like the Vanderbuilts... Democrats one and all.

Surely the media is not run by democrats. We all know how biased it is to Repblicans ... don't we? NBC is owned by a littel firm Called G.E. Run by a democrat don'tcha know. And CBS? Need I ask. ABC by Disney? Not even a Republican in site.

I won't mention the other media, corporate and investor giants except that poor boy Buffet is a Democrat.

The big money people are nearly all Democrats. Only a handful of huge corporations are in the hands of Republicans.

Democrats are about regulating to the extent that the status becomes the only Quo. That suits big business to a T.

Did I mention that K-mart and its Kressge family have been leftist since Marx was a boy?

The people who work in the media and many Democrats that hold office still believe that by punishing the Rich and by punishing Corporations they are punishing Republicans. That is just no longer true.

IT IS THE OVERRIDING ISSUE IN THIS DEBATE!!

It is with you. If your object is to convince you that you are against it.. then it is the overrriding concern.

If your object is to defeat the bill, then you will have to use reasons that will get Democrats to vote against the bill.

Name a reason more likely to get Democrats to vote against a bill, than the bill will hurt Democrats?

Do you want to defeat the bill or just say words that will let you feel sorry for yourself in defeat?

Barnes is an idiot media weenie who has never so much as walked a precinct. Real numbers, taken from today's NRO's "The Corner":

Over the last 10 years the Dems have gotten about 36% of their funds in soft money, the Rs about 27%. In 99-00, the Dems raised $245 million soft, about 47% of their total, and the Rs $249 million, about 37% of the total. However, through last June (end of year numbers will be out shortly) both parties raised about 54% in soft money, but the Rs raised $66 million and the Ds just $38 million. I suspect that was one reason why some of the Dems defected from Ney-Wynn over to Shays-Meehan.

So, as usual, Barnes is just plain wrong. That doesn't even take into account all the other Byzantine changes added at the last minute to satisfy Gephardt.

And the court just might not overturn this thing. Read it and weep: Courting Disaster

Even Barnes believes that super rich people are Republicans and only some super rich are Democrats. That is what he says in his article. He implies that corporations are run by republicans. That also is not true.

I dont know thats necessarily true. He pointed to Main street (thats retail business owners, small business), professionals, and the wealthy. I get pissed when Democrats acuse the Republicans of being in bed with big business when they identify more with small business and with main street. Its the Democrats who find their soul mates at the head of large corporations.

If I thought that your "reasoning" would work, I would join you. But it won't. First of all, the Dems ain't stupid. They understand that no matter what happens in this election, with their willing accomplices in the press, this bill could PERMANENTLY cement their superiority, even when they don't have the votes.

Second, Rush made the point and I agree: the reason (so far) that the Constitution argument isn't "working" is because so far, no one but Rush has even MADE it in a public forum in a regular way. You can't have hit and run attacks---it has to be a sustained offensive, with good examples about other groups (non-conservative) groups who will be severely damaged in their ability to speak freely.

I'm against this stupid bill myself just because it's another lame brain gov't intrusion but:

The limitations placed on ads run in the last 60 days of a campaign is only on soft money. The NRA can still use hard money right up to an election. This actually hurts the NAACP and ACLU much more then the NRA.

Barnes is correct that the GOP comes out better end the end. I think Bush will sign it just because it does stop the union money frombeing used and it helps the GOP?

It's also one less issue the Dems can harp on this fall !

If it curbs money in politics at all, the effect will probably be slight. And Republicans shouldn't be alarmed, despite House Speaker Dennis Hastert's claim that Shays-Meehan could produce Armageddon for them. In truth, there's a better chance the measure will aid Republicans in winning the White House, Senate, and House, rather than impede them.

Sorry, Freedy.

This is NOT how you amend the Constitution. Court or no court, this measure must go down in flames, hopefully on the main desk of the Oval Office.

"Asked point-blank on This Week, on January 23rd, 2000, if he would veto McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, Bush said that he would. Will he? He's an honest man."

You left out the part where he said "If it doesn't stop union money" ! He never said he would out right veto it. Many times he said that if the CFR doesn't get union money out he would veto it but he would sign it if it did this. It looks like the bill does stop union money from what I heard on Hannity and Savage?

This is NOT how you amend the Constitution. Court or no court, this measure must go down in flames, hopefully on the main desk of the Oval Office.

Exactly right.

My contention is that if this passes and Bush doesn't veto, he willingly refuses to uphold the Constitution as he is sworn to do. And the attitude that pundits and pols take - and I hope Bush isn't included - that "we know its unconstitutional but let the Supreme Court sort it out because we have political points to score - is COWARDLY.

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.