Spending Limits As A Campaign Reform Tool
It seems that during the last several election cycles, the issue of campaign finance reform has had serious air time. Not only that, but Congress has passed some election “reform” legislation. This legislation is supposed to level the playing field and create a more open and ethical environment for the electoral process. So where are we?
I think the following sums it up nicely: Abramoff & 85%+ re-election rates. As to a more ethical process, we have more scandal now than ever. When we talk about re-election rates, the incumbent is still king, and if anything the current legislation has made it easier for incumbents to hang onto their seats.
WHY It’s Worse Now
With respect to limiting contributions or spending, people are forgeting two key factors an incumbent has that only money can make up for: a) free press and b) pulpit power.
FREE PRESS: If I were to count the number of times that a given congressman is mentioned in the media during their term it would likely end up in the hundreds. This builds name recognition; something that costs the opponent a great deal to counterbalance. I would estimate based on races I tracked in Utah and Ohio that the average incumbent was the beneficiary of $500,000 in free press during his or her term in congress (more for senators, less for representatives). That represents a HUGE advantage for incumbents and they didn’t even have to pay for it.
PULPIT POWER: If I’m average Joe opponent, I don’t have access to the “pulpit” the same way as an incumbent. The incumbent will receive invitations to speak at civic functions, to attend county party fundraisers, to talk on radio shows, etc. If I am the opponent, I am a second class citizen hoping for just a minute or two of airtime/face time. Money may get me in the door of the fundraiser, but doesn’t guarantee the opportunity to speak.
The Abramoff Issue
My only response here is that when you create bad law, evil gets more cunning and those trying to play by the rules get pinched. Bad policy creates lack of respect for the law. As Fredrick Bastiat said, “The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable.”
SOLUTION
I would propose two initial steps: 1) elimiate the contribution cap and 2) ensure clear and simple full disclosure of campaign contributors. The first overcomes the monetary barier that past legislation (passed by incumbents) has imposed on challengers. The second is focused on making sure that the public has full knowledge of the sources backing a particular opponent.
