In the past, the Democratic-controlled Congress could virtuously vote in favor of campaign reform, secure in the knowledge that a Republican president would veto the measure. But with a Democratic president at the helm who has promised election reform, Congress suddenly appears much less anxious to act. But Clinton is pushing ahead with the idea.
There is little argument that reform is needed. First of all, campaigns are horrendously expensive. The recent Senate race in Utah is one example; three millionaire candidates spent a total of $11 million. Nationwide, capturing a Senate seat now costs an average of $4 million.House races are less expensive, but money from Political Action Committees or PACS, special interest lobbyists and well-heeled individuals flows to parties and candidates at the rate of $2.5 million a week. Incumbent war chests are built up that most challengers cannot begin to match. House members in recent elections have had eight or nine times as much money as their challengers.
As a result of the expensive campaigns and the constant need for election financing, money talks and Congress listens. And the public grows increasingly cynical about politics and politicians.
What the country needs is some limit on campaign spending and the reduction in the role and amount of PAC money. That may be difficult to impose, since the courts have ruled that curbing of campaign outlays, is in effect, a violation of free speech.
Most reform legislation would balance some kind of spending limits with partial public financing of congressional races. But it is the use of public funds that raises questions. Dipping into the deficit-ridden U.S. treasury to pay for campaigns should not be encouraged. And anything that lets Congress get its hands on taxpayer money for election campaigns is to be feared. And once that door is opened, other office holders will soon be asking for the same privilege
The presidential campaign law allows taxpayers to check off a $1 box on the income tax form. But disillusioned Americans have begun to ignore that option and the campaign fund has shrinking amounts of money available, forcing candidates to raise more funds from PACS and other sources - the very kind of thing the law was supposed to reduce.
What kind of campaign reform the Congress will eventually produce is unknown at present. It probably won't be exactly like the measure approved last year. Now that passage is a real possibility, there may be a scramble to come up with a weaker plan. House Speaker Thomas Foley already has said that if a campaign reform bill is approved, it won't go into effect until after 1994 so that incumbents can run under the old rules.
Campaign reform, yes. But let's not make public financing of election campaigns a part of the deal. The cure might be worse than the disease.