ImPACted Politics
By Paul M. Weyrich
August 24, 2004

There was a time in American politics that federal elections to the Senate and House were fairly simple. Corporate contributions were not legal, however, individuals could spend what they wished. Campaigns simply had to report contributions to the clerks of the House and Senate. These clerks would release the information at intervals.

If reported in the media, it was possible for someone to figure out what sort of candidate was running by who had supported him. If a candidate had big time contributions from a wealthy developer who was not known to be very honest, voters could properly conclude that perhaps the developer owned the Senate candidate, who was the recipient of this developer's money. Likewise, if Labor Union political action committees (PACs) from all over the country began pouring money into a Senate candidate's coffers, the voter might conclude that the candidate was a wholly owned subsidiary of big labor. By and large the system worked well.

There was one loophole that could have been easily corrected. The final report on contributions was issued after the elections. The report previous to that was ten days before the election. So some candidates would implore some wealthy or perhaps controversial contributors to withhold their contributions until nine days before the election. That way their names didn't surface until after the election itself. I recall only one Senate race where disclosure of controversial donors might well have made a difference.

Otherwise it was a system that served the nation well decade after decade. That fact has never bothered liberals, however. No, in reaction to Watergate they passed a so-called Campaign Reform Law. That law was supposed to take big money out of politics. It didn't.

The Supreme Court said that independent expenditures by individuals or PACs could use as much money as they wished so long as they had no contact with the campaign.

It was the Federal Election Commission (largely a product of Watergate) that gave birth to the plethora of PACs we now have all over America. Every corporation worth its salt has one. The unions, which had some going back many years, suddenly have lots more. The pro-Israel group, for example, has more than 70 PACs. With a limit of $5,000 each, a candidate who is supportive of Israel, and who has a shot at winning, can receive more than $350,000 in a flash. These PACs are independent of one another, but they still pass the word when one of the lead groups makes a contribution. The NRA PAC seldom gives to Presidential campaigns, but will spend millions in an independent expenditure on their issue.

In addition to PACs themselves, issue groups, which often collected corporate dollars, would advertise their issue ending with "tell Senator X you expect him to vote against the union bosses when the Right to Work Bill comes up in the Senate next week." Or if the issue group wanted voters to know that the Senator up for election is a good guy the ad might say, "Thank Senator X for his pledge to vote for the Right to Work Bill which will be voted on next week." Groups on both sides have done this.

Senators and Congressmen hated this. The temerity of outside groups to let voters know how they voted, or are pledged to vote, was just too much for what George Will has correctly labeled "the political elite."

Politicians wanted to control which issues could be discussed in an election year. The fact that pesky groups would make them accountable for their record in Congress was more than they could swallow...so they passed McCain-Feingold, which makes it illegal to mention the name of a Senator or Congressman in a television ad 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before the general election. The constitutionality of that law is being tested by a pro-life group in Wisconsin that is upset that Senators Feingold and Kohl are among those Senators blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Even though their ad does not mention any political party nor does the ad advocate the election or defeat of any candidate, but just because they mention Senator Feingold's name, and it is with-in 30 days of his primary, they can't run the ad.

Meanwhile, the 527 groups, which sprang up suddenly (mostly on the left and mostly with the open checkbook of George Soros) after McCain-Feingold was declared constitutional, spewing out hate and naming the names of candidates. Most of these ads are aimed at defeating President Bush. Will they have to cease mentioning his name after September 2nd? Will the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have to cease saying that John Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief after September 2nd? If McCain-Feingold doesn't apply to the 527 groups, and some legal experts claim that the way the law is written, they cannot be silenced, then McCain-Feingold drafters will have written a law with a loophole so large the whole brown-water Navy could drive through it.

Recently, the FEC passed new rules that apply January 1, 2005 and make it harder for 527s to get started and to operate. They will not be able to mention the name of a candidate in order to raise money. And if expenditures are to include commercials for or against a candidate, then half of the money must be from hard (after tax) dollars of no more than $5,000 per person. Whoop de doo. Now that the proverbial horse is out of the barn, they vote to slightly close the barn door -- only it will be left wide open between now and the end of the year, in other words through the elections.

So those left-wing groups that have 527s, if they can convince some sugar daddy to give big money between now and the end of the year, will be set to operate in 2006 big time. But if new people want to get in on the game, it will be next to impossible for them to get started. Nice try FEC. Somehow you regulators of free speech always manage to make things worse.

The Bartlett-Chambliss Bill, which would simply repeal the free speech restrictions in McCain Feingold, may yet be considered this year in light of the chaos of the 527s.

If not in this Congress, certainly Bartlett-Chambliss ought to be first on the docket for the new year when Members of Congress may have the experience of 2004 fresh in their minds.

------------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.