COLUMN: Give to your favorite candidate

From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 From Seth Lasser's, "For Mass Consumption," Fall '97 The concept of reforming the laws governing the financing of American political campaigns is not a new one. Numerous attempts have been made to change the laws to "level the playing field," -- to lessen the influence that money from a select few hason our political landscape. These attempts at change have fallen victim to the same disease that cripples other attempts at reforming our system -- good ideas that are watered down to the point where their impact can barely be felt. One major goal of the legislation was to provide the public with an exact accounting of the amount that candidates spent and how the money was raised. The Federal Election Commission was created to supervise the disclosure of this information. The idea was easy public access to this information would make voters wary of electing a candidate who received questionable donations. This was to increase the electoral fitness of candidates who refused to take donations from those who might use their contributions to influence the political process. The other important area of the legislation dealt with the question of where the contributions could come from and how much they could amount to. Individuals' contributions were limited to a thousand dollars per candidate, with each person allowed to spend up to $25,000 per federal election cycle. Organizations could donate up to $5,000 per candidate with no absolute limit. To make up for the expected shortfall in campaign funds, limited public funds would be provided to those running for office. However, the legislation failed to make a dent in the problem, for donations of significant size can still be made. This body of legislation is riddled with loopholes. Typically, an individual wishing to make a sizable contribution to a politician organizes a large group of people to each make a thousand dollar donation. This "bundling" of donations is often used to support a number of candidates at the same time. An even easier way to give a large amount of money is write a check to the national party organizations. There is no limit on how much money can be given to the Republican or Democratic National Committees, and once the primaries are over this money goes directly to the party's candidate. So-called soft-money donations bring millions to campaign war chests; as we have learned in the past few months, donations of a hundred thousand dollars or more are not unusual. Moreover, the two progressive ideas written into law in the late 1970s -- public financing of elections and mandatory disclosure of contributions -- were not extended far enough. At the present time, they do not provide ample counterweight to the dominance of large donations. The fact is, the only time records of donations are examined is when investigative reporters catch a whiff of wrongdoing. Voters do not inspect the list of donors before choosing who to cast their ballot for. In a society that values unencumbered media access whenever possible, mandatory disclosure of donations is crucial; it cannot have an effect on the overall picture of campaign finance. The goal of public funding of elections was to alleviate the dependence of candidates on private sources for funds necessary for campaigning. Matching funds are provided to candidates in the pre-nomination period, flat grants are given to the two major parties for their national nominating conventions and money is given to the parties' nominees in the general election. The half-baked form it takes is a testimony to the debate over the legitimacy of the state supporting candidates for office. The provision of some public funds for campaigns has proven ineffective as a means to lessen the importance of private donations. We know that large donations cause ethical conflicts give disproportionate power in the making of American policy to a few large check-writers. The question is what kind of policies could lessen the dependence of electoral politicians of these large donations. The principle to guide such efforts is not difficult to discern: popular participation in this aspect of American politics must be encouraged as much as possible. We can find a way to fund elections through the massing of small donations coupled with an increase in the level of public funding. Numerous schemes have been devised to pay for this increase -- every commentator has a pet line-item to slash in order to provide the needed money. Common examples include lowering the percentage of lobbying expenses that are tax-deductible and eliminating free postage to incumbents sending promotional materials to their constituents. It is more difficult to conceive of a way to boost small campaign donations from the majority of the country who are unable to donate thousands in election cycles. A large number of Americans already give money to political campaigns. Their numbers have increased from a mere three million in 1952 to close to 20 million in the mid-1980s. Survey findings indicate there is a "reservoir of untapped potential" for greater amounts of donations -- almost half of the country has expressed a willingness to contribute a small figure if solicited. Conventional wisdom assumes the task can only be accomplished by setting caps on the amount candidates can spend on campaigns. However, the effect of this proposal would be to reduce the visibility of non-incumbents and candidates for office in general. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, it is not unreasonable to expect hundreds of millions to be spent on presidential election campaigns nor tens of millions for state office races. Coupled with further reductions in permissible donation levels and elimination of "soft-money," a movement to promote the giving of small donations as a civic duty owed by all citizens is the best solution to our campaign finance mess.