A Reform by Any Other Name
Campaign finance legislation proves to be profitable for some

Congress finally did it – it reformed campaign finance. Not really, of course, but it did pass a bill named Campaign Finance Reform following much bullying by the mainstream media. Some, with grave doubts regarding fairness and constitutionality, voted for it because they are standing for re-election this year and fear being brow-beaten by newspapers and broadcasters.

Alas, calling it reform does not necessarily make it so. Members of Congress carefully delayed implementation until after November’s election. Other provisions also are testimony to “industrial strength” incumbent protection. Americans were told this legislation would strengthen the requirement for broadcasters to sell time to candidates at the same low rates stations charge their best customers, lacing challengers on a more fair footing, since challengers usually have less money and are hurt more by costly broadcasting rates. This provision was dropped after vigorous lobbying against it by broadcasters.

Incidentally, the New York Times, a chief advocate for “Campaign Finance Reform,” owns eight network-affiliated TV stations. Another dedicated advocate for this legislation, the Washington Post, owns six. Eliminating this provision for lower rates provides a potential windfall for these two media companies and others. Support from powerful newspapers and broadcasters is far more valuable to politicians than monetary contributions.

Americans were also told labor unions would no longer be allowed to use members’ dues without permission in supporting political candidates. Traditionally, union leadership has used dues to help elect candidates supporting leadership’s agenda, not necessarily that of its members. Provisions for members’ payroll protection were also scuttled.

Despite the fact that this issue at no time has been a priority of American voters, and despite the fact that Congress has a full plate of important national issues still not addressed, it put this issue ahead of all others. Though well below the radar screen on all polls – the issue has been treated as urgent by media elites.

Campaign Finance was the centerpiece of the presidential primary campaign of Republican Senator John McCain in 2000. Outside of the media, this issue never took hold and McCain lost overwhelmingly. Nevertheless, the media have continued daily to hye the “urgency” of campaign finance. This same media will benefit from the legislation passed by Congress and signed by a president with serious misgivings about its fairness and constitutionality.

The bill forbids organizations to publish or broadcast advertisements within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election that argue, even indirectly, in favor of a candidate. What kind of organizations? Farmers, nurses, independent businesses, environmentalists, teachers, PTA, you name it. Too much power is taken from the people to choose their government while the already powerful media remains free to express partisan and biased viewpoints. Incumbents love this provision because groups are not allowed to criticize them during the critical phases of their campaigns. Political speech is restricted in a rudimentary way.

Let’s not forget what precipitated Congressional and media preoccupation with finance reform: scandals of earlier presidential campaigns where laws were broken and nobody was held accountable. The very politicians who brazenly broke election finance laws hurriedly took up the mantra of campaign finance reform to provide cover for their sleazy, illegal conduct.

Distinguished journalist George Will points out that “the media, which comprise the only intense constituency for campaign finance reform, advocate expanded government regulation of all political advocacy except that done by the media.” Will nailed it.

New laws are not the answer. Enforcement of existing laws is required, and not just those for elections. Severely impeding voting groups wishing to support a candidate is not the way of free elections. The nefarious result of this “reform” is further advantage for incumbents and greater power to influence elections by the media.

When a nation fails to enforce its election laws as the U.S. has done in recent years, does that nation deserve clean elections?

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

Back to Perspective Index

Back to May Issue

Copyright 1996-2002, by Kentucky Business Online.  All rights reserved.

Editorial content is copyright 2002, 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.