Not Much of an Improvement

In the case of President Bush’s campaign reform proposal, half a loaf is not much better than none. While it has a few good points--which are elements of most reform plans--the major thrust of his program would be to move the money around, not get control of it. He claimed it was time to free the electoral system from the grip of special interests. But his plan primarily would free it from the grip of one set of special interests and deliver it into the grip of another set of special interests.

And it certainly is not just coincidence that the proposal would help Republicans and hurt Democrats. As Bush cracked the day before he revealed the proposal: “Well, I have a good reason to want to lock out the status quo in terms of control of the House or control of the Senate.” Democrats dominate both houses of Congress and incumbents tend to suffer from any reform program. But the undisguised partisan overtones of the Bush plan would seem to doom it from the outset from serious consideration.

For one, it would outlaw political action committees that are affiliated with business and labor, but not those oriented toward an ideology or issue. Most political observers believe there are more of this type of committee favoring Republicans than Democrats. Even so, it would not be difficult for a trade association committee, for instance, to reconstitute itself around an ideology or issue.

The political action committee contribution limit would be reduced from $5,000 per candidate to $2,500. Another part of the plan would permit political parties to contribute up to $150,000 to a congressional candidate’s campaign, about double the present limit, to reduce the amount of time a candidate must devote to fund-raising. But this provision would not necessarily diminish special-interest influence. The contribution would merely be somewhat more indirect, and it would not be hard to draw a dotted line from the contributor tothe congressman’s campaign.

Even more dubious is Bush’s plan for establish ing reapportionment criteria in federal law, ostensibly in an effort to eliminate gerrymandering of congressional districts to favor one party or the other. This would be done in part by requiring geographically compact districts that cross city and county boundary lines as little as possible. Such a proposal would infringe on an area traditionally left to the states and the courts. And there are other valid criteria for reapportionment that must be considered.

There are some excellent points in Bush’s plan. As he proposed, there should be a limit on an incumbent’s ability to carry over unspent campaign funds from one election to the next. The imposing campaign war chest is a nifty device for scaring away potential challengers. Members of Congress, indeed, should get higher pay in return for giving up outside income, such as speaking honoraria that often are nothing more than legalized graft. There should be a limit on the number of newsletters a member of Congress can send to constituents without any postal charge, especially at campaign time.

The major flaw in the Bush plan, however, is that it does not put any limit on how much a candidate can spend to get elected. Until that is done, incumbents always will find a way to get a major financial advantage over challengers. If the special interests want to get campaign money to incumbent candidates, they will find a way. And the only way to avoid a First Amendment constitutional problem with limiting campaign spending is to provide a measure of public financing, such as now is done in the presidential primaries. A candidate would have to qualify for public matching funds by pledging to abide by the limit and by raising a certain amount himself, preferably in small amounts and preferably in the district in which he is running.