Brigham Young University political scientist David Magleby could not have timed the release of his new book on campaign reform more conveniently.
For the first time in years, both houses of Congress were considering - and eventually passed - campaign reform bills. The reforms are the outgrowth of concern over ethics, Housing and Urban Development problems and savings and loan scandals.But Magleby and his co-author, Candice J. Nelson of American University, who released their book earlier this month, said they aren't very impressed with the reform bills. They see them more as piecemeal efforts to please voters in an election year rather than true reform.
"What is needed is comprehensive reform," Magleby told a press conference at the Brookings Institution, the non-partisan think tank that published their new book, "The Money Chase."
Without reforming all areas of campaign law at the same time, piecemeal efforts are like squeezing a balloon only to have it bulge out in another place, the writers said.
For example, merely banning political action committees as proposed in the Senate would likely simply result in special interests funneling money through other methods, such as encouraging top officials and their spouses to contribute more heavily.
And Magleby said there is great need for true reform for three primary reasons: First, it is needed to help make races more competitive. Incumbents now win 98 percent of House races. "It isn't that incumbents spend too much," Magleby said. "The problem is, challengers spend far too little" because they can't attract enough money.
Second, he said, the current system forces candidates to rely on money from special interests - which has especially been given a bad name because of some S&L scandals where members intervened for failing thrifts that had made heavy contributions.
Third, the unrestrained costs of campaigns have made candidates almost full-time fund raisers. Senators must raise an estimated $14,000 every week for six years to fund their campaigns. Challengers must often start years early to raise needed money, which cuts down on competition.
Magleby, who earlier this year served on a bipartisan Senate task force to come up with reform options, suggested several reform proposals he hopes Congress will eventually have courage enough to pass, even if they threaten the system present that incumbents have used to their advantage.
They include:
-Impose spending limits and provide partial public campaign financing, as is done in presidential campaigns with money from an income tax check-off. The proposal would allow newcomers access to sufficient money. It also would hold costs down and free incumbents from frantic fund raising.
-Change contribution limits to allow individuals and political parties to give more so special interests would give less as a percentage.
-Require full disclosure by any party, person or foundation regarding money spent to influence federal elections.
-Reduce communication costs by giving all candidates two or three reduced-cost mailings in the 60 days before elections and setting a low rate for television commercials.
"If reform is not comprehensive, we will have incremental reform that causes as many problems as it is trying to solve," Magleby said.