Articles

Decapitalizing Political Campaigns

By Robert A. Pastor

Our Statue of Liberty has inspired Chinese, Chileans and Czechs to risk their lives for freedom, and yet we have forgotten democracy's first lesson: Each generation must struggle to improve our democracy in order to preserve it.

The threats to a new democracy sometimes come from the military or guerillas. In a consolidated democracy such as ours, the threats are less obvious. Today, the greatest threat to American democracy comes from an insidious mix of money and television.
• Money affects access. When I was nominated to be an ambassador, I found that the quickest way in to see a senator was to ask for help from his chief fund-raiser.
• Money influences the schedules of our public officials. The average winning Senate candidate spent about $3.6 million in 1996. To reach that level over a two-year period, a candidate needs to raise $36,000 a week. To do that, a candidate has to give the lion's share of his or her time to this goal - not analyzing public policy, not serving constitutents, not negotiating legislation, but going to fund-raisers, phoning contributors and serving their interests.
• Money has transformed the way Washington works. The past 15 years have seen a massive proliferation of lobbyists and associations that write checks and legislation on alternate days.
• Money defines the candidates and many nominees. A good political leader is increasingly defined not in terms of expertise or public service, but in terms of his ability to raise money.
• Money lowers the level of political debate because most of it goes to producing short, negative commercials.
• Money influences every issue - from the environment to taxes to cable TV.

It doesn't have to be like this. No other country in the world has a campaign finance system as bad as ours, and we should look abroad for lessons.

A candidate for the British House of Commons is limited to spending $12,800 in a campaign, and the total spent by all candidates in 1992 was less than $55 million. This was more than the Canadians spent, but less than 3 percent of what was spent in the 1996 U.S. election. In Canada, Britain, Germany and Costa Rica, election laws assure access to the media and control contributions and spending.

There is a simple answer to our campaign finance problem: To obtain a federal broadcast license, the media would agree to grant sufficient time for candidates to convey their messages, and candidates would agree not to use the media for 30-second "bumper sticker" commercials. This solution would lift the quality of the political debate and reduce by perhaps 75 percent the need for money. We also need limits on contributions, political action committees and soft money, and to encourage middle-class participation, we should resurrect a rule that makes limited contributions tax-deductible.

Is this a realistic proposal in the short term? Sadly, no, for many reasons, not the least of which is that some Supreme Court justices continue to equate free speech with money, although that's like giving millionaires a million votes while others get just one.

Until Americans realize the danger of the current system, they will not reach for the dramatic change that is needed. In the meantime, the McCain-Feingold bill that bans soft money and PACs and sets other limits offers a good step in the right direction. We need to take that step to rejuvenate our democracy.

reprinted from The Atlanta Constitution, July 6, 1997

Robert A. Pastor is Goodrich C. White Professor of International Relations at Emory University and a fellow at the Carter Center in Atlanta. He has organized missions to monitor elections in a dozen countries around the world.