McCain-Feingold: The Best Thing We've Got

At a sold-out town meeting in San Francisco's Grand Hyatt last Monday, the 800-member audience behaved more like they were at a rock concert than a lecture on campaign finance reform. "Campaign finance reform is a no-brainer for Americans," said Democratic Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, earning yet another applause-riven standing ovation from the floor. Feingold, with his "strange bedfellow," Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona, has been on a cross-country tour to drum up support for their bill, which, beginning March 19, will be debated on the Senate floor.

Though far from perfect legislation, the McCain-Feingold bill has overwhelming popular support. People like it because it bans the "soft money" contributions that have been flowing Niagra Falls-like to the national political parties, and because it restricts "issue ads" from organizations like the NRA that are no more than flimsily disguised campaign commercials. They also understand that during the last four years, unregulated donations to the Democratic Party put a for rent sign on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that banks and credit card companies will likely be rewarded with a pro-industry bankruptcy bill, thanks to the bundles of cash Amex and Mastercard handed over to the Republicans during the 1999-2000 election cycle.

Soft money contributions have become the ultimate loophole to the post-Watergate election reform laws that Congress passed in 1974. Under them, as under the landmark 1907 and 1947 election laws, corporations and labor unions are banned from contributing directly to campaigns. Yet, as the old political saying goes, the money always finds a way. And so it has, through donations to PACs (Political Action Committees) that are ostensibly for party-building activities but are actually used for candidates.

At present, individuals can give no more than $20,000 a year to a national party committee, $1,000 to a candidate for a primary campaign, another $1,000 for a general election and no more than a total of $25,000 to all candidates combined. However there is nothing to stop, let's say, Goldman Sachs from giving $500,000 to support a "special interest agenda," which in turn is used for campaign ads or other "get out the vote" efforts.

Though it flows a little more to the right than the left, both parties benefit from soft money. During the 2000 campaign, Republicans reaped $244 million and Democrats $219 million in such contributions. (Back in 1992, the collective soft money coffers stood at a mere $83 million.)

In San Francisco, McCain joked that the difference between Democratic and Republican fundraising impropriety is the difference between "bribery and extortion." Democrats get bribed; people like Marc Rich "send money to the DNC in order to seek help," he quipped. "We [Republicans] call up people and ask them to send us money so we can give them help. So, you see, there is a difference between bribery and extortion."

The good news is that McCain-Feingold bill -- or the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill (now that Senator Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) has become a so-sponsor) -- stands its best chance of passage since Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. Back in January, 60 senators, including all 50 Democrats, were said to back the bill, ensuring that it would be free from filibuster threats.

But the bad news is that now the bill has finally reached the Senate floor, its passage is far from assured. Senate Democrats, who have long supported it, suddenly have developed misgivings. They fear a ban on soft money will hamper their newfound success at raising cash, which helps them stay in power.

In an attempt to appeal to reason over greed, Feingold told the San Francisco crowd, "I wish my colleagues would remember ... we don't have the president anymore. We don't have the biggest fund-raiser in America. We're going to get clobbered on soft money this year. We're absolutely crazy if we stay with this system." This may be more rhetorical bluster than truth, though, as Democrats have become almost as chummy with corporations as Republicans in recent years.