Campaign finance reform has become like a rabbit-in-the-hat magic trick. Now you see it, now you don't. And even when you see it, it seems too fake to believe.
Tucked away deep inside President Clinton's 81-minute long State of the Union address, among a long list of to-dos and not-to-dos for 1995, was the usual call for campaign finance reform.Despite two decades of wrangling and public disgust, the current "state of the art" is an ineffectual hodgepodge of restrictions on the amount of donations from individuals, corporations, and political action committees. Republicans and Democrats alike have eluded the best of intentions with loopholes, "soft money" from their parties and bundling of donations.
Public debate about campaign finance reform has proceeded in deep ignorance of how other democracies confront the issue. Yet a comparative approach sheds new light on potential solutions.
A survey of rules and practices of the democracies of Western Europe, Canada, Japan, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand reveals the following approaches: outright restrictions on the amount of campaign spending for legislative races; restrictions on the amount of donations; public financing of elections; and free media access to candidates and parties, coupled with a prohibition on paid political advertisements.
Some countries combine several of these, a few use all four. The United States is the only one of the 20 that utilizes just one of these practices for legislative elections, namely, restrictions on the amount of donations.
Canada, France, New Zealand, and Britain place firm limits on candidates' campaign spending. The ceiling for legislative candidates is $6,200 in New Zealand, $15,000 in Great Britain, $22,000 in Canada, and $75,000 in France. Belgium, Spain, and Israel restrict the amount of "soft money" campaign spending by parties. In the US there are no such limits, and costs for legislative races often exceed a half a million dollars.
Opinion polls show that the U.S. public favors restrictions on campaign spending, and Clinton's message called for Congress to "cap the cost of campaigns."
Congress actually passed such a law in 1974, but soon after an unlikely coalition of conservatives and civil libertarians filed suit, challenging the law as a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.
Many voters have become disgusted and cynical, perceiving their democracy to be "for sale" to the highest bidder.
Another great casualty of Buckley is public financing of elections. Most of the 20 liberal democracies have some form of public financing for legislative candidates, but despite several attempts Congress has failed to pass such a law.
Many within the legal community believe that Buckley should be overturned. For this reason the National Voting Rights Institute of Cambridge, Mass., has filed a lawsuit targeting what it calls "the wealth primary."
Citing such evidence as statistics showing that 1992 congressional winners spent on average $543,000 and losers only $201,000, backers of the lawsuit hope to challenge the validity of Buckley v. Valeo.
The fourth type of campaign finance reform practiced in the other countries, free access to the media, could greatly reduce campaign costs. Yet the United States is alone among the 20 democracies in not offering this type of support to parties or candidates. Fifteen of the 20 nations also prohibit paid political advertisements as a way of keeping the playing field even.
Those who are serious about wringing money out of politics would do well to pay attention to the examples of other countries.