|
|
|
Jewish World Review Feb. 16, 2000 /10 Adar I, 5760
 |
Sen. John McCain’s talk about campaign financing and its corruption of the
democratic system has had much to do with making the senator from Arizona a
serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. He talks about
how the grip of special interests on the political process is driving
citizens away from participating in and caring about their government.
But considering Jews traditionally have had an influence in politics
disproportionate to their population — from a high level of financial giving
to a strong voter turnout — would campaign finance reform be good for the
Jewish community?
But other talked-about reforms, such as Democratic presidential candidate
Bill Bradley’s plan for public financing of campaigns, are more controversial
among Jews and could seriously affect Jewish political activism.
In the current campaign finance system, said Matt Brooks, the Republican
Jewish Coalition’s executive director, the Jewish community has had a history
of success. “One reason the Jewish community has been so successful, other
than being right on the issues,” said Brooks, “is that Jews have been able to
be significant supporters financially” of candidates favorable to Jewish
political interests.
Brooks, who said campaign finance reform creates a “significant risk of
losing that ability,” does not favor any of the reform proposals being
discussed on the campaign trail. Brooks would support a deregulated system in
which every contribution was disclosed but there would be no limits on
giving, a proposal floated by some Republican senators and members of
Congress.
But Ira Forman, the National Jewish Democratic Council’s executive director,
believes the current “Wild West system” of campaign finance is “clearly not
in the interest of the Jewish community.”
Forman is referring to the laws, or lack thereof, governing “soft money.”
Forman said these huge amounts of corporate dollars going to the parties may
not be healthy for a democracy like the United States. A change in the “soft
money” laws, he added, could help to “alleviate the cynicism” of many
Americans toward the political process. In addition, huge corporations, whose
interests revolve around economic matters in their industries, are able to
put much more money into the system than Jewish individuals or groups can.
While “this unlimited system can’t be good for Jews,” Forman said, “that’s
not to say that any type of reform is good for Jews.”
Forman personally believes proposals such as the public financing of
campaigns — in which each candidate would receive a certain amount of money
from the government to run his or her campaign — or a ban on contributions
from people living outside of the congressional candidate’s home state could
hurt the Jewish community’s influence on the political process.
Morris Amitay, former American Israel Public Affairs Committee executive
director and now treasurer of the pro-Israel Washington PAC, agreed that
while a ban or restriction on “soft money” would not be damaging to Jewish
interests, other reforms would be.
Mandell Ganchrow, president of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of
America, also said that while eliminating “soft money” abuses would be good,
anything that eliminates political action committees is not. “I think PACs
are very important for the pro-Israel community,” said Ganchrow, who had
served as president of the pro-Israel Hudson Valley PAC.
“They’re very healthy for democracy,” he said, because they allow citizens to
contribute money that is targeted to a particular issue area.
Some Jewish groups, though, have come out in support of comprehensive
campaign finance reform that goes beyond “soft money” bans. The Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC) has been a strong proponent of reforms,
such as limitations on the total amount of PAC contributions a candidate can
accept and the partial public financing of congressional campaigns.
RAC associate director Mark Pelavin said that one “can’t only look at Jewish
political interests” when looking at campaign finance reform, but must
examine “Jewish values,” such as whether moneyed interests have too much
power in the present system.
“It depends on how you define Jewish interests,” said Pelavin. “A Jewish
interest is the health of a democracy. When people feel an alienation and
distrust of government, it’s not good for society” and historically not good
for Jews, he said.
The RAC has joined with a number of other religious groups — mainly
Protestant organizations — in a coalition called Religious Leaders for
Campaign Finance Reform, which has urged Congress to pass campaign finance
reform legislation.
The Jewish Council for Public Affairs also supports more comprehensive
campaign finance reform measures. The group’s 1998-99 agenda states that the
organization has “long supported ... voluntary spending limits for and/or
public financing of congressional elections; the prohibition of ‘soft money’
abuses; limits on political action committee contributions to individual
candidates; and limits on the aggregate PAC contributions a candidate can
receive.”
Larry Rubin, JCPA’s executive vice chair, said that while “Jews benefit from
the current [campaign finance] system,” many believe “Jews will do well in
any system.” Many believe improving the health of democracy in the United
States, Rubin said, ought to be a primary concern of the Jewish
By Eric Fingerhut
Washington Jewish Week
Most Jewish political activists agree that a ban on “soft money,” such as
McCain advocates, would not have a major effect on the Jewish community’s
political participation. Most likely, they say, it would be beneficial,
lessening the influence of huge business interests on the political process. 
Republicans and Democrats can currently raise unlimited amounts of “soft
money” from corporations and other big givers. The money is supposed to be
used for general party-building activities, such as get-out-the-vote efforts,
not to advocate for a particular candidate. But the weak laws surrounding the
use of this money have led to “soft money” funds being used the same way as
the “hard money” directly given to candidates. The two parties raised $262
million in “soft money” during the 1996 election. 
Public financing of campaigns would essentially eliminate the influence of
any outside groups, which would include, in addition to business interests,
political action committees that are oriented around policy issues, such as
support of Israel. With most American Jews concentrated in a handful of
states, a ban on out-of-state contributions also would be a big blow to
Jewish political activism.
Eric Fingerhut is a staff writer at the
Washington Jewish Week. Comment by clicking here.
