Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

The late Senator James B. Allen (D-AL) was one of the wisest men I have met who served in that august body and was fond of saying "When you hear the word 'reform' watch for the gold in the capitol dome." Like any conservative he was skeptical of the reformers who often achieved something rather different than had been intended.

Consider what happened after Watergate. The cry of the newly minted liberals who dominated the 94th Congress was "get money out of politics." They cited the efforts of the Nixon-Agnew ticket in 1972 to "suck up all available political money with a vacuum cleaner." So they passed legislation. Guess what was the result of that legislation? Political Action Committees (PACs).

Some companies and some labor unions organized PACs prior to 1975. When Congress banned their political contributions but did not forbid PACs, the Federal Election Commission said they were indeed legal and almost overnight PACs sprung up everywhere. By law the PACs were not allowed to coordinate expenditures but they legally could exchange information or interview candidates together. There are two examples. When the AFL-CIO PAC endorsed a candidate dozens of PACs followed suit and suddenly opened their checkbooks. The lobby for the Republic of Israel had fewer ways to reach candidates about the survival of Israel. When one U.S. Senate candidate signaled his support for Israel following an interview with a PAC word spread that the PAC was endorsing the candidate.

After 1975 some eighty PACs were created in different communities. Today with the Internet it takes a nano-second for all eighty PACs to have word of an endorsement. $2,500, the new PAC limit under McCain Feingold, isn't much money. But by combining both the primary and the general election limitations, the sum becomes $5,000 per PAC. With eighty PACs suddenly $400,000 is available to the candidate. That will get his attention.

Big money was transferred from individuals to interest groups, which had lots of PACs. Big money remained in politics. That supposedly angered Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) enough to introduce draconian legislation. Many Senators and Congressmen who voted for their legislation did so believing the Supreme Court would declare parts of that law unconstitutional. Indeed the President, in signing the law, said he believed that parts were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold despite the Act's blatant efforts to curtail free speech. But big money was supposed to be taken out of politics. The result? Billionaire George Soros funded many 527s. In other cases, such as Senator John Kerry's Swift Boat colleagues who would do anything to prevent him from becoming president, more modest sums started the effort and these smaller contributions enabled them to achieve their goal. At first liberals and Democrats were far ahead because of the 527s. By election time conservatives and Republicans had caught up. So did the so-called reformers get big money out of politics? On the contrary, a case can be made that a lot more big money was in the political process after McCain-Feingold than before its enactment.

>> Continued -- Page 1 2