Hagel Reform
George Bush recently contacted Senator Chuck Hagel and told him to "keep pushing" his sadly deficient bill. Why does Bush support the Hagel Bill? Clearly he does not want to be forced to veto the McCain-Feingold bill, and the Hagel will save him. In addition, the Hagel bill would worsen an already corrupt system by raising individual contributions, with an increase on individual contributions from $1,000 to $3,000 under the guise of a cost of living increase. Since donors can contribute the maximum to both the primary and general elections campaigns, this would raise contributions to $6,000. (If a spouse also contributed it would raise the maximum to double again to $12,000 per couple.)This bill greatly increases the role of wealthy interests in American politics. This kind of reform would of course be a great victory to the Republicans, as the CEO's and Corporate leaders, would have little trouble in coming up with this kind of money.
"Yesterday
the White House issued a set of absurdly weak "principles" to
govern changes in the fund-raising laws that would do virtually nothing
to stem the flow of money. The White House is also reportedly supporting
Senator Chuck Hagel's efforts to push his own deficient bill as an alternative
to the McCain- Feingold soft-money ban. With these steps, Mr. Bush would
preserve the unbridled fund-raising that has corrupted American politics."
says a March 16, 2001 article in the New
York Times.
Senator Hagel's
Reform Ruse
February 10, 2001
New York Times
Senator John McCain won a big victory two weeks ago when he got the Senate to schedule a full debate on campaign finance reform next month. At least for now the reform bill does not face the threat of a filibuster by Trent Lott and the Republican leadership. Recently, however, a new danger has emerged for campaign reform in the guise of a Senate bill that poses as a more realistic alternative. Sponsored by Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, and Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, this substitute would open more loopholes than it attempts to close and would do nothing to stop the flow of corrupt money into the system. Reformers should not be lulled into supporting it.
To understand how the bill would impede reform, it is helpful to remember that federal election law already bans corporations and unions from giving money to candidates and places strict ceilings on donations by individuals and political action committees, or PAC's. But current law does nothing to curb so-called soft-money contributions to political parties that are ostensibly for party-building activities but are actually used for the candidates.
The Hagel-Landrieu bill, first of all, would raise the ceilings on individual and PAC donations so high as to render the idea of a limit meaningless. At present, individuals can give no more than $20,000 a year to a national party committee, no more than $1,000 to a candidate for a primary campaign and another $1,000 for the general election, and no more than a total of $25,000 to all candidates combined. Mr. Hagel and Ms. Landrieu would triple these limits, making combined donations in six figures the norm. Instead of banning soft-money donations by individuals, unions and corporations to political parties, they would place an annual cap of $60,000 on them. Such high limits would institutionalize corruption, not restrict it.
A greater danger is that Hagel-Landrieu would also permit senators, representatives and candidates for these jobs to raise unlimited sums of money, even from unions and corporations, as long as the money is channeled into state parties for the purpose of helping in their campaigns. This loophole would accelerate the practice of candidates circumventing federal limits by saying they were raising money for the state party. By contrast, Mr. McCain's bill, co-sponsored by Senator Russell Feingold, would place an outright ban on any candidate raising any soft money in connection with a federal election and would apply strict ceilings if the money goes to state elections.
Those provisions are meant to curb the phenomenon of legislators using their "leadership PAC's" to raise and spend unlimited soft money. Only this week it was reported that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had set up her own leadership PAC to help the Democrats win back the Senate, and that she was considering the establishment of a parallel operation to raise soft money to use in state elections. However the money is used, any soft-money donor would be earning an obligation from Senator Clinton.
We therefore strongly urge her not to undertake any soft-money fund-raising. That would be a mistake of politics and principle, especially in light of the growing urgency for her, at the start of her Senate career, to separate herself from the unrestrained fund-raising practices identified with her husband. The McCain-Feingold bill, in any case, would bar all soft-money fund-raising by a federal officeholder or candidate. The Hagel-Landrieu bill would keep that loophole open.
Mr. Hagel says that with this loophole, he is simply trying to insure the health and survival of state political parties. He also says he would be willing to negotiate different ceilings on all sorts of donations. But there is no point in changing the ceilings if the bill leaves a loophole big enough for corrupt money to go into the system unimpeded. When Mr. Hagel first introduced his reform plan in 1999, he said he was doing so because McCain-Feingold was dead that year. In the new Senate, support for McCain-Feingold has grown to a substantial majority. Those who say they favor a cleanup should be given a chance to vote on it. They should not be allowed to hide behind amendments that would gut reform in the guise of realism.