When soft campaign cash meets hazy memories

There is an old saying; Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it. - Sailor

Friday, March 4, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m.
When soft campaign cash meets hazy memories
Collin Levey / Times editorial columnist
Seattle Times

Where's a time machine when you really need it? This week, EMILY's List, one of the country's top Democratic political-action committees, went to court to challenge the latest batch of campaign-finance reforms. The group complains that new rules on "soft money" of so-called 527 groups would represent an "arbitrary and capricious" limit on its First Amendment rights.

No kidding. But where were these principled ladies when the original campaign restrictions were being written? Their help would have been terrific back then, but one gets the feeling that EMILY's List is opposed only to restrictions that disadvantage EMILY's List.

On Monday, a D.C. Circuit Court judge denied the group's demand for a preliminary injunction against a new rule that restricts the way it can spend its soft money. Three years ago, Democrats couldn't be bothered to defend the rights of individual donors. But now that professional hit organizations might find themselves reined in, EMILY and friends appreciate the connection between political spending and free speech.

The current controversy is an aftershock from the 2004 election, wherein the new Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (also known as McCain-Feingold) was found to be springing leaks like the SS Minnow. Remember all those 527 groups whose "independent" spending drove both parties mad? On the left, there was MoveOn.org, funded by billionaire George Soros. On the right, there were the Swift Boat veterans, who raised nasty questions about John Kerry's Vietnam service.

Chagrined, the law's authors have since been cobbling together some further restrictions on how soft money can be spent. One plan would cap individual donations to 527s at $30,000. And lo and behold, Democratic political-action committee America Coming Together has begun humming a free-speech tune, too. Why do we suspect this has more to do with self-interest than principle?

Forgive us if we roll our eyes a little: Back when the laws were being written, Democrats favored new restrictions because they believed it would curb the political giving of big-business pachyderms. Then, when it was campaign season, they channeled Al Gore: The spirit of the law took a back seat to "no controlling legal authority" as they simply redirected millions of "soft dollar" donations from the Democratic Party to nominally independent 527 groups.

After all, most of the biggest soft-money donors were on the Democratic side. Republicans had their "shadowy" groups, but they played a far smaller role in pure dollar terms.

Overall, 2004 saw political contributions climb 70 percent for the presidential race and over 30 percent for congressional candidates. In terms of independent expenditures, Democrats outspent Republicans by a ratio of 3-to-1. And in keeping with tradition, "those backed by labor unions, abortion rights and environmental groups were among the most active," notes the Center for Public Integrity.

So you see what's going on. Groups like EMILY's List and other Democratic organizations have got the system where they want it. Big businesses don't want to be associated with controversial groups, so their executives donate money directly to politicians — and their donations are limited by law. Not so the Democratic Party's richest constituents, who can give unlimited money to groups that are relatively uninhibited in their willingness to offend, and polarize large parts of the electorate.

Bill Clinton, for one, did not buy the distinction that somehow Democratic fund-raising groups were more virtuous than Republican ones. "That's a hot issue up here," Clinton told a questioner back in 1993 when an EMILY's List exemption was being considered. "I really appreciate the work that EMILY's List has done. ... But my own personal view is that the law should be the same for everyone."

To Clinton's credit, he recognized that the principles of campaign finance should not be dictated by partisan advantage. Many Republicans who once argued, in principled fashion, against any restrictions are now in favor of killing the 527s — because 527s were used more broadly, if less effectively, by the Democrats in the most recent election.

But these lessons should really be about the unwisdom of limiting political donations, when all we really need is good disclosure. Eventually, the reformers will realize that the new campaign-finance laws have done nothing to increase public confidence in elected officials or the sanctity of elections. Nor have they done anything to improve the accountability of politicians, who plead ignorance when a 527 group smears an opponent on their behalf.

EMILY's List bases its existence on defending a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. Too bad she can't do the same with her pocketbook.

Collin Levey writes Fridays for editorial pages of The Times. E-mail her at clevey@seattletimes.com