Campaign Finance Reform

In the 1994 mid-term elections, candidates spent over $700 million in their efforts to win elections. Today, the average amount spent in a successful campaign in the House of Representatives is almost $500,000. A vast majority of the money needed to run campaigns comes not from individual donations, but from large corporations and special interests. In Barbara Kennelly's (D-Conn) 1996 House campaign, $494,358 were raised in the period between January 1, 1995, and October 16, 1996. Of that amount, only $92,975 came from individual contributers in her district. In comparison, $272,400 were contribute by variou Political Action Committees. The largest donations came from Financial, Insurance, and Real Estate PACS ($102,097), and Labor PACS. ($41,000) Out of this excess, a movement to reform campaign finance has been gaining steam.

There are laws on the books which limit campaign spending. Current Federal Election Law limits direct contribution to candidate to $1,000 per election. However, there is no limit on the amount of money that can be donated to groups which support a candidates views. These groups, ranging from groups such as the NRA to the DNC, can spend as much money as they like supporting the views of their candidates. This type of support is called issue advocacy, and is supposed to refrain from directly naming or attacking the other candidate, but often times it is perfectly clear who it is that is being attacked. It is these types of "soft money" contributions that are the subject of the most intense criticism. It is soft money which needs to be reformed.

The cost of running television adds is one of the main reasons why campaigns have become so expensive. Candidates will run one set of adds in the primaries, and then run another in the general election. In addition to adds run directly by the candidate, PACS and other interests can run adds supporting their particular candidate. Television has become a crucial part of any campaign for office. Ads attacking the oposition have been found to be particularly effective, and every election cycle are becoming more and more viciuos Ways must be found which will effectivly reduce the costs involved in running television ads and refocus the peoples aim back on the issues and away from pointless attacks.

Giving candidates free air time during the general election is probaly the best way to reduce the negativity of TV ads and refocus campaigns on issues. A 1996 plan called for the networks to give up an hour of time in the evenings once a week for the presidential candidates to state their views on issues and respond to attacks on them by the opposition. This would have provoked meaningful, issue oriented debate during the final weeks of the campaign. However, this proposal never really got past the talking stage. The main reason is that, despite what was stated in public, the networks didn't go for it becuase of the revenue they'd lose. What they did propose to do, was too little and too late to set anything up in time for the election.

Free air time is part of several of the campaign financing reform bills being debated in Congress. These bills are no where near being passed into law, and it is likely that there won't be any real reform in the next four years. However, no law need be passed in order for free airtime to become a reality. The FCC holds all broadcast frequenies in public trust and has the power to regulate them. Free airtime for candidates during elections could become a reality through a change in FCC regulations. Networks are also required by law to block out a portion of time to broadcasting material that is in the public interest. What better way to fullfill this obligation than through donating broadcast time during elections.

Free airtime is only one of the proposals out there. Citizens groups have been pushing of an amendment to the Constitution that deals with campaign finances. Recently, this effort has gained the support of several key members of Congress. Senators Ernest Hollings(D-SC) and Bill Bradley(D-NJ) have each introduced amendments in the Senate, while Representative Nancy Kaptur(D-OH) is leading a similar effort in the House. In a draft version of the Bradley Amendment, Congress would be given the power to set limits on both contributions and expenditures made to influence elections. This is meant to deal specifically with soft money. The amendment also extends these powers to governments at the state and local level.

The Campaign Finance Reform Amendment is an effort to deal with the influence of soft money in elections, but it fails to address the fact that the cost of running a campaign is steadily increasing. It assumes that by merely limiting the amount of money that can be spent that the cost of campaigns will decrease. It does nothing to address the reasons why campaigns are so expensive.

One must ask if a Constitutional amendment is really necessary or wise. The Constitution serves as a framework of the government and establishes the bounds that it must operate within. Campaign finance reform is certainly an important issue, but it is not important enough to amend the Constitution. Campaign finance reform can and should occur at a statutory level. The Constitution is a broad set of principles which Congress bases its laws upon. To include campaign finance in the Constitution would serve to make the Constitution into an overly specific document that would function more like a normal, statutory law than the broad set of governing principles that it is supposed to be.