Political Contributions
Americans give to the causes in which they believe

The Supreme Court is set to rule, probably before July, on the constitutionality of the 2002 McCain-Feingold restrictions on private campaign contributions. That law bans soft money contributions to the national political parties. It also prohibits interest groups from using commercials, during the final phase of campaigns to promote or criticize a federal candidate’s issue positions.

Kentucky’s Sen. Mitch McConnell, the lead plaintiff contesting the constitutionality of these prohibitions, is joined by an unlikely coalition of the ACLU on the left and the NRA and Christian Coalition on the right. They claim the law infringes on freedom of political speech and weakens traditional parties while empowering splinter organizations to raise and spend money more freely.

This law sprang from notions, by some, that private political contributions are inherently corrupt and there is “too much money in politics.” Three MIT professors recently analyzed political spending in a paper titled, “Why is there so little money in U.S. Politics?”. Their study concludes that legislators vote almost entirely based on their own beliefs, preferences of their voters and their party, not on political contributions.

Eighty percent of political money comes from individuals and in small sums. The study shows that interest group contributions have minimal effect on legislative behavior.

The back and forth debate on restricting private political contributions can probably only be resolved by a Supreme Court ruling. In trying to make such restrictions pass Constitutional muster, proponents have tied the restrictions to public (tax-paid) campaign financing, another thorny issue.

Using tax money to fund campaigns is supposed to make “clean campaigns” where those elected are not beholden to contributors. Vast evidence of cheating at both the state and federal levels easily belies that thesis.

In Kentucky, tax-supported political campaign legislation has certainly not eliminated corruption. Numerous indictments have occurred. Kentucky’s legislation allowing tax funding of some political campaigns was enacted in the early ’90s in the face of 79 percent opposition of Kentuckians polled by the Courier-Journal.

Consent of the governed is a basic tenet of representative form of government and Kentucky state government enacted that legislation without the consent of the governed. Current polls continue to show very strong opposition to tax-funded political campaigns.

It is outrageously irresponsible of those who have continued to insist on spending millions of dollars for tax-funded campaigns while a state budget, stained with red ink, cuts other important programs. Even in better times, taxes should not be confiscated to pay for political campaigns. Thomas Jefferson said it is immoral to compel a man to furnish monies for the election of someone whose political views are opposite his own. That is exactly what happens when taxpayer dollars fund political campaigns.

Most taxpayers have already rejected presidential public financing. Less than 20 percent were participating in the voluntary tax checkoff at the time Kentucky jumped into public financing. Instead of recognizing the clear 80 percent majority who refused to support it, advocates of tax-funded campaigns have continued to insist. Voluntary contributions remain the best way to pay for political campaigns.

The Supreme Court is likely to strike down McCain-Feingold’s campaign spending limits for individuals and associations. Earlier, the federal court has already ruled: “The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one’s political views is wasteful, excessive or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution it is not the government but the people – individually as citizens and candidates and collectively as associations and political committees – who must retain control over the quantity and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign.” It seems crystal clear.

The intuitive judgment of average citizens is strong and true, and is infinitely reliable. Legislators should listen to that judgment and not the media bias seeking to bully them into pre-determined philosophical policies based on self-indulgent platitudes.

Pat Freibert is a former Kentucky state representative from Lexington
editorial@lanereport.com

Back to Perspective Index

Back to March Issue

Copyright 1996-2003, by Kentucky Business Online.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 2003, Lane Communications Group
All editorial material is fully protected and must not be reproduced in any manner without prior permission.

The Lane Report is a trademark of Lane Communications Group.  All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.