Magazine article Sojourners Magazine

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: Why Incremental Reform Is Not the Solution

Magazine article Sojourners Magazine

The Best Democracy Money Can Buy: Why Incremental Reform Is Not the Solution

Article excerpt

Advocates of campaign finance reform approach the issue from two different strategic perspectives: Abolitionism and incrementalism. Abolitionists espouse comprehensive reform--full public financing that removes all private money from the electoral process. They see money in politics as a raging river--dam it at one point and it will create a new riverbed elsewhere. Under the name of the Clean Money, Clean Elections (CMCE) reform, public financing is successful law to varying degrees in four states.

A federal "clean elections" bill has been introduced that, like the state bills, gives public financing to qualified candidates who agree not to take campaign contributions from private sources (except for a limited number of small "qualifying" contributions that serve to establish eligibility for the full public stipend). Right now, the federal bill lacks the grassroots support to make it a pressing issue.

The difficulty of passing a comprehensive public financing bill is why many reformers choose the incremental approach. On the assumption that it is better to pass a limited bill than no bill at all, they hope to reform the system in stages. The 2002 McCain-Feingold bill (officially known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act or BCRA), is their primary accomplishment. It is meant to prohibit "soft money," the hundreds of millions of dollars that corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals launder through unregulated state parties for use in federal elections.

Many abolitionists predicted that McCain-Feingold would prove to be one big loophole that would spawn new conduits for soft money and dilute efforts to build popular support for comprehensive public financing.

THE ABOLITIONISTS seem to have been right. First, McCain-Feingold doubled the contribution limits on legal "hard money" contributions, from $1,000 to $2,000. In reality, such limits are phony. Wealthy donors often give money in the name of every member of their family, including their children. Corporations and other special interest groups also bundle donations so they, rather than the individual donor, get credit for the donation.

Some interest groups and politicians despise the quest for money. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed


An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.