Jewish World Review Nov. 13, 2003 / 18 Mar-Cheshvan, 5764
Dean and a billionaire loon may have driven the final nails into the coffin of election finance reform
Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean and a billionaire loon may
have driven the final nails into the coffin of election finance reform.
Dean has announced he will not accept federal matching funds for his
campaign for president. The decision will cost him $19 million, but will
free him from spending limits in the primaries he would be obligated to
abide by if he accepted federal money.
George Soros, one of the world's richest men with an estimated forture of $7
billion, told the Washington Post that defeating President Bush has become
"the central focus of my life."
Soros is putting his money where his mouth his. He's contributed more than
$15 million to liberal groups whose purpose is to circumvent the
restrictions imposed on candidate committees and political parties by the
Soros has some unusual political ideas. He blames anti-Semitism in Europe
and the Arab world on Israel and the Bush administration, and likens
President Bush to Adolf Hitler.
What Dean and Soros are doing is neither illegal or immoral. But it is hypocritical, since both have in the past pledged their undying troth to campaign finance reform. Dean and Soros oppose the influence of big money on politics...except when the big money is being spent on behalf of Democrats.
The involvement of Soros and of Richard Mellon Scaife, a kind of counterpart
on the right wing, in politics is motivated by principle and ideology, not
by greed. But restrictions on campaign contributions were adopted in
substantial part to keep the ultra rich from having a disproportionate
influence on elections, whatever their motivations might be.
Soros and other left-wing fat cats are applying a tourniquet to a wound
Democrats inflicted upon themselves when they passed McCain-Feingold in
March of 2002.
The primary purpose of McCain-Feingold was to bar so-called "soft money"
contributions to political parties from special interest groups and wealthy
individuals. Democrats voted for the bill without reflecting on the fact
that their party was much more dependent on "soft money" than Republicans
were. Republicans have a large number of relatively small donors. Democrats
relied on donations from special interest groups and a few very wealthy
individuals to compensate for their smaller donor base.
Compounding the damage Democrats did to themselves is the provision in the
McCain-Feingold law that raised to $2,000 from $1,000 the maximum amount a
single individual may donate to a candidate.
While this increase was just and long overdue - it had not been adjusted for
inflation since the ceiling was imposed in 1976 - it magnified the advantage
Republicans gain from their much larger list of individual donors. Had the
old restrictions remained in place, Bush likely could not approach his goal
of $200 million in contributions.
Election reform is dying because of misplaced emphasis, and the tendency of
liberals to over-regulate.
The problem with our elections is not that too much money is spent on them.
We spend more advertising beer and junk food. The problem is where the money
comes from, and the strings that are attached to it.
Restrictions should be placed on special interest group contributions, and
on the size of individual contributions, not to hold down election spending,
but to keep candidates from being beholden to special interests, and to keep
a handful of very wealthy individuals like George Soros from having a
disproportionate influence on the outcome of elections.
Because there is no constitutional way to restrict the amounts motivated
millionaires like Soros or Richard Mellon Scaife can spend on "independent"
advertising or get out the vote operations, higher spending by candidates
and parties is more beneficial to democracy than lower, because it dilutes
the impact billionaires such as Soros and Scaife can have.
McCain-Feingold hasn't taken special interest money out of politics, as it promised. Instead, it's increased the importance of special interest money, and diminished accountability. Bad campaign finance reform is worse than no campaign finance reform at all.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.