On most issues, Republican legislators have presented a solid phalanx to give the Bush administration whatever it wants. The exception is campaign finance reform--and the chink in the Republican armor is Arizona Senator John McCain. Should Democrats be cheered? The answer is a qualified yes. For starters, the reform coalition is mostly McCain plus Democrats. The Democrats are thus identified with an overdue set of popular reforms, while George W. Bush, who won election on a tide of unlimited corporate money, is identified with business as usual. The bad news is that the McCain-Feingold bill keeps getting watered down, and it was less than revolutionary to begin with. In the end, Bush will probably sign it, less because he was out strategized and outvoted than because the bill won't make that much difference.
TheMcCain-Feingold bill is necessary because of the collapse of the post-Watergatesystem of reforms. This legislation, enacted in 1974, was intended to constrainboth individual giving and candidate outlays. But with the Buckleyv. Valeo ruling in 1976, the Supreme Court virtually equated money with speech, allowed rich individuals to donate unlimited funds to their own campaigns, and permitted nominally independent front groups to pour unregulated money into election treasuries. These so-called independent outlays can attack candidates by name, and they have been used very effectively by conservative interest groups like the National Rifle Association.
The system furtherunraveled as campaigns began exploiting a well intentioned "party-building"loophole contained in the 1974 law, as unregulated, or "soft," money. The lawpermits unlimited donations to parties, even from entities such as corporations,which are prohibited from giving money to candidates directly. But it took only afew election cycles for the distinction between candidates and parties to blur.Donations to parties, of course, help elect candidates.
At its heart, theMcCain-Feingold bill is about banning soft money. This is the single-worst abusein the current money-and-politics system, since it has allowed the return of themillion-dollar donor and has turned campaigning into a money chase forcontributors who are rich and, usually, conservative. The second-worst aspect ofthe current system is the independent-outlay dodge. The current model ofMcCain-Feingold contains a provision narrowing what nominally independent groupscan do to underwrite a candidacy within 60 days of an election.
But here there is a risk that the Supreme Court may hold that such a ban is anunconstitutional limitation of free speech. If the Court (unwisely) were torender such a ruling, soft money would just return in a new form, asindependent-expenditure money. Since conservative interest groups have a lot moremoney to throw at politics than liberal ones, the whole effort to constrain moneywould once again backfire on liberal reformers.
Even so, McCain-Feingold isprobably a risk worth taking, because it sets back the role of big money inpolitics, at least for a time, and it raises the profile of the issue. The publicneeds to understand that this is far more than a "process" or "good-government"issue. How society's richest and most powerful interests are permitted toundermine democracy by substituting a large check for a democratic mobilizationof voters has the most profound implications for substantive politics.
Reformtends to have its own momentum. If a halfway decent version of McCain-Feingolddoes ultimately pass Congress, the next big objective for reformers is truepublic financing of elections. This is currently a long shot, but reform canbuild on itself. Few thought Congress would take on the broadcasting industry,but the Senate voted for a surprise floor amendment requiring broadcasters tostop gouging democracy and to give candidates the cheapest available advertisingrate.
Big money, of course, will find some ways around the constraints ofMcCain-Feingold, just as it found subterfuges around the 1974 reforms. The highcourt may be an accomplice, just as it was in 1976. But if nothing else, theMcCain-Feingold reforms will slow down big money for a time. That Congressevidently feels it has to take public concerns seriously is itself anachievement. And the fact that some version of this bill will likely pass, eventhough the Bush administration and the Senate Republican leadership would havepreferred nothing at all, is remarkable.
McCain's maverick streak is also redounding to the Democrats' advantage in thebattle for a serious patients-rights bill. President Bush has sided with theinsurance industry, while McCain has joined Ted Kennedy in sponsoring the latestversion of a more muscular bill. Plainly, George W. Bush cannot control thesenator from Arizona, and this may embolden other independent-minded Republicansenators.
On most issues, however, McCain remains a fairly ordinary conservative. Democratsare getting no help from him on tax and budget issues. So it is no wiser forDemocrats to build their message, philosophy, or broad legislative strategyaround a presumed alliance with John McCain than it was to build their fiscalstrategy around the whims of Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan. Like Greenspan, McCainhas his own interests and he remains at heart a partisan Republican. Still, it iscomforting that, just as the liberal Democratic majority has its cross to bear inthe form of the Democratic Leadership Council and the fiscally retrograde BlueDogs, George W. Bush has to live with McCain.
