For Campaign Finance Laws That Work, Look Abroad Bound by a Supreme Court Decision That Equates Spending with Speech, the US Shies Away from Real Reform
Steven Hill. Steven Hill, based the West Coast coordinator of the Center Washington., The Christian Science Monitor
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 Un-ion 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, Ausralia, and New Zealand reveals the following approaches: (1) outright restrictions on the amount of campaign spending for legislative races; (2) restrictions on the amount of donations; (3) public financing of elections; and (4) 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 US public favors restrictions on campaign spending, and Mr. Clinton's State of the Union 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.
THE subsequent US Supreme Court decision, Buckley v. Valeo, ruled that money is speech and not subject to restriction by the government. The court not only struck down limits on candidates' expenses, but also opened up a gaping loophole when it did away with limits on so-called "independent expenditures" - better known as "soft money" - spent on behalf of a candidate rather than donated directly to the candidate. …