Saturday, August 29, 1998

GOP can't duck on Scandal No. 2

By Morton Kondracke

Republicans can criticize Democrats freely in Scandal No. 1, the White House sexcapades, but not Scandal No. 2, the campaign finance mess.

Not only did the GOP follow the Democrats in blowing holes wide open in existing campaign laws in 1996, but so far they have resisted most mightily changing the laws so it can't happen again.

After trying every possible stratagem to avoid it, the GOP-dominated House did pass the Shays-Meehan bill to ban soft money earlier this month, but only in the near-certain knowledge that the GOP-dominated Senate will stall it to death.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has vowed he will try to revive campaign reform when the Senate comes back to town in September, but he faces massive opposition from Senate GOP leaders. The possibility of a filibuster means McCain will have to muster 60 votes, a difficult task.

Moreover, with time short before Congress adjourns for the year, opponents of reform can mount any number of delaying tactics to kill it.

Meantime, Republicans are engaging in just the sort of conduct that makes Americans so cynical about politics they are staying away from the polls in droves.

GOP congressional leaders are pressuring corporations and business lobbyists to kick in to their $37 million issue-advocacy media campaign by threatening to retaliate legislatively if they don't. This amounts to legalized extortion, and it's a bipartisan activity. The Republicans are using their power in the legislative branch to squeeze money from business much as President Clinton and Vice President Gore dialed for dollars from the White House in 1995-96.

Loopholes in current campaign finance law make it possible for businesses, unions and individuals to contribute unlimited amounts of so-called "soft" money to state and national political parties and party committees, though the law limits "hard money" contributions to candidates.

"Soft" money contributions originally were permitted to encourage "party-building" activities such as conventions, get-out-the-vote drives and generalized publicity, but in 1995 and 1996, the Democrats figured out how to turn it into the equivalent of "hard" money.

Clinton personally edited ads mounted by the Democratic National Committee touting his programs and blasting Republicans. The ads implied -- but carefully did not state -- that voters should support Clinton and oppose Bob Dole.

Belatedly, the GOP figured out what was happening and began using soft money to tout Dole in mid-1996.

Republicans have screamed for Janet Reno to appoint an independent counsel to investigate White House fundraising, but to prevent future scandals, the GOP ought to be passing a soft-money ban.

Defenders of the current system defend it as a matter of free speech, but the fact is that use of corporate funds and union dues to make political contributions has been illegal since early in this century.

Corporate and union contributions to candidates are supposed to come only from voluntary contributions to political action committees -- and those, in limited amounts -- but soft money loopholes have blown away the restrictions, which is why legislation is needed.

Congress needs to do more than banning soft money, including significantly raising current limits on the amounts individuals and political action committees can give to candidates and parties. The cost of campaigning has rocketed upward, and if soft money is eliminated, more hard money needs to be available.

Politicians ought to clean up the campaign finance system because it, as well as the seamy Clinton scandals, is undermining public respect for politics.

This doesn't show up in polls, which indicate campaign finance reform is not a major item on the national agenda and that the public is relatively happy with Congress and the system in general.

But evidence of the problem is plain to see where it counts most: at the polls on election day. Despite record expenditures on campaigns and campaign advertising, voter participation is steadily declining.

In 1996, only 54 percent of voting-age Americans cast ballots for president, the lowest level since the 1920s. This year, fewer than 35 percent are expected to participate in off-year elections, a new record.

Politicians ought to worry when they're investing more and more in their product, but the public is buying it less.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

Newspaper Enterprise Assn.