The McCain-Feingold campaign
finance legislation (S.27) is in disrepair. With its new loopholes, this bill
is now phony reform that will increase the stranglehold of the wealthiest
citizens on our political process. If passed, the McCain-Feingold bill would
further reduce the role of ordinary Americans in financing political campaigns.
It would be better for Congress to pass nothing than to pass the current bill.
It is not worth sacrificing
the hard money contribution limits for a soft money ban. Complete elimination
of soft money would only get us back to where we were 4 years ago. Candidates
and parties spent as much hard money in the 2000 elections as they spent in
hard and soft money combined in 1996, according to a recent U.S. PIRG analysis.
In addition, much of the $500 million in soft money that would be banned by
the bill could easily be transferred into party or candidate hard money. The
McCain-Feingold bill now has so many loopholes that it will not decrease the
amount of big money in politics.
This is not a question
of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. The McCain-Feingold bill
was never perfect and allowing powerful interests to give even more to candidates
than they currently do is far from good. Should this bill pass, we will likely
see more big money spent in the next presidential election cycle than we saw
in 1999-2000.
Even with some reductions
in soft money, this bill takes more steps backward than forward. The McCain-Feingold
bill now doubles the amount wealthy donors can give directly to politicians,
doubles the state party contribution limits, raises the national party limits
from $20,000 to $25,000, and increases the aggregate amount an individual
can give per election cycle from $50,000 to $75,000. These increases could
bring in as much as $390 million in new individual hard money contributions,
according to a U.S. PIRG analysis. The bill would also dramatically increase
contribution limits for candidates running against wealthy challengers. If
the wealthy candidate provision had been in place in the last election cycle,
contribution limits would have increased by 3 or 6 times in one-quarter of
the 2000 Senate races. In four races, contributions or coordinated expenditures
by parties would have been eliminated as well.
Even under the current
contribution limits, candidate fundraising has grown at nearly twice the rate
of inflation. In 1999-2000, fundraising by Senate and House candidates reached
more than $1 billion - an increase of 425 percent since 1978. Only sheer greed can explain
the overwhelming support in the Senate for higher contribution limits.
Doubling individual contribution
limits will increase the stranglehold of the wealthiest citizens on our political
system. The amended McCain-Feingold bill makes a bad system worse. Currently
the wealthiest Americans determine who runs for and wins office in the United
States. In 1999-2000 only one-ninth of 1 percent of Americans made a $1,000
contribution to a federal candidate, according to the Center for Responsive
Politics. Contributions from this minority of large donors accounted for 46
percent of all individual money given to candidates. If the $1,000 limit had
been doubled, the percentage of large donor money would have increased to
55-63 percent of the total, according to a U.S. PIRG analysis.
No politician should think
that this sham legislation will reduce the role of big money in elections
or restore integrity to our political process. Powerful interests will continue
to determine who can run for office, and who wins elections. The amended McCain-Feingold
bill is a result of self-interested maneuvering. It makes a mockery of our
campaign finance system and of the people of the United States who have asked
for true reform.
