Campaign Finance Reform

Democracy has been called a government of laws, not of men; but who makes the laws that govern democracy? Not you, me, or our fellow citizens — at least, not according to the five-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, who continue to chip away at our authority to govern ourselves. We must reclaim that authority soon or risk losing it forever. On June 27, the five conservative justices struck down an attempt by the state of Arizona to preserve fair and meaningful participation in its elections.

This afternoon, Gov.Martin O'Malleyplans to sign what may be the most significant step toward increasing transparency in Maryland's system of campaign finance in years: a requirement that those who contribute more than $500 to a single candidate during an election cycle list their occupation and employer. That's a good thing; it will give the public a much better idea of who is backing candidates for office and why. However, the fact that this step only brings Maryland up to some semblance of the standard the federal government has employed since the 1970s, and a majority of other states have long held as well, shows just how far the state has to go if voters are to have confidence that the entire campaign finance system isn't just a means for special interests to buy influence.

From Ross Perot to Common Cause, critics of the status quo in Washington seek lobbying and campaign finance reform laws by year's end. Mr. Perot said recently he would serve as chairman of a commission to recommend specific reforms to Congress.Congress needs an outside shove from some sort of commission. President Clinton and Speaker Newt Gingrich agreed on creating one with a handshake in New Hampshire back in June. The Senate passed lobbying reform legislation, but the House leadership says it probably won't get to it this year.

I urge my fellow citizens not to give in to despair over the choices being offered in this year's presidential elections. As an independent who is fiscally conservative, socially liberal and believes there is an appropriate role for government in our lives, I ask you to consider Buddy Roemer for president. We need economic reform, regulatory reform, tax reform, health care reform and education reform. But unless we achieve campaign finance reform, there's not chance of getting sensible reforms in any of these areas.

WASHINGTON -- Once again, campaign finance reformers will make a major effort starting this week to close off one key spigot in the mushrooming flow of special-interest money into the election process before next year's presidential race.House Speaker Dennis Hastert has agreed to call up the reform bill co-sponsored by Republican Rep. Christopher Shays and Democratic Rep. Martin Meehan that would ban "soft" money -- unregulated contributions that now go to state political parties but regularly are diverted to help presidential candidates.

Washington -- REMEMBER the case of the Keating Five? That was the one in which, among other things, five senators who had received large campaign contributions from a moneybags developer named Charles Keating were called on the senatorial carpet for having interceded in his behalf with federal savings-and-loan regulators. It was supposed to, like Watergate in 1972, trigger real campaign finance reform by providing an example of the corruption of the existing system.Now listen to Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, chief opponent of the Democratic-sponsored reform that has passed the Senate and author of a Republican version that failed: "With the Keating case over . . . the momentum of the legislation is not as great as it was last year."

WASHINGTON -- McCainism, the McCarthyism of today's "progressives," involves, as McCarthyism did, the reckless hurling of imprecise accusations. Then the accusation was "communism!" Today it is "corruption!" Pandemic corruption of "everybody" by "the system" supposedly justifies campaign-finance reforms. Those reforms would subject the rights of political speech and association to yet further government limits and supervision, by restricting the political contributions and expenditures that are indispensable for communication in modern society.

WASHINGTON -- One day Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., announces plans to hire a staff of 80 to investigate fund-raising by the Democratic National Committee. Then the committee votes 52 subpoenas. And we learn that the Justice Department has 25 lawyers working on the same question.In the House, another Republican-led investigation headed by Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana also begins issuing subpoenas. And the Washington Post tells us that the Justice Department is looking into the possibility that China may have steered some contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign last year.

It has been two years since the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and we are only now just beginning to see how its overturning of a century of campaign finance law is distorting the electoral process. Rather than acting truly independently of campaigns, as the majority of justices envisioned, these entities exclusively act on behalf of individual candidates - and are typically run by former aides. Rather than encouraging the universal right of free speech, the ruling has had the effect of providing a megaphone for the rich to drown out all other voices.

Democracy has been called a government of laws, not of men; but who makes the laws that govern democracy? Not you, me, or our fellow citizens — at least, not according to the five-justice conservative majority on the Supreme Court, who continue to chip away at our authority to govern ourselves. We must reclaim that authority soon or risk losing it forever. On June 27, the five conservative justices struck down an attempt by the state of Arizona to preserve fair and meaningful participation in its elections.

In your recent editorial on Maryland and campaign finance reform you state that in addition to the limited liability corporation (LLC) loophole, there are others sorely in need of attention ("A boost for campaign finance reform" Feb. 17). We very much appreciate Gov. Martin O'Malley's support of this bill, just as we appreciate the report done by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler on several needed campaign finance reforms. What distinguishes this major loophole from the others, and what you would not know from reading the attorney general's report, is legislation to eliminate it has passed the House of Delegates six times in the past 10 years.

On Nov. 2, Maryland voters get their once-every-20-years chance to decide whether to convene a constitutional convention. In theory, it's an appealing idea. Such an exercise would afford the opportunity for citizens to enact specific reforms that lawmakers concerned with protecting their incumbency are unwilling to consider, and the process affords voters much more power over the final outcome than they get when they send lawmakers to the General Assembly session every year. In an ideal world, it would lead to a convention of independent, civic-minded individuals thinking deeply about how to make our state government more open, transparent and responsive.

The effect of the "loophole" to the Disclose Act you mentioned in the editorial "Disclose, disclose, disclose" (June 29) is that it empowers the entrenched special interest groups who are exempted from it. Such groups, as the NRA (which you mentioned) and many, many others, such as AFL/CIO, ACLU, NARAL, NAACP, Planned Parenthood, PETA, People for the American Way and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are given a free pass, and the bill silences the citizens of the U.S. Any group of citizens who decide to band together and make a TV ad about the state of our country or to speak out and let the American people know facts about a particular issue are silenced by the bill.

Here's a stumper for your next current events quiz: Top leaders from what political party called for "full disclosure" of campaign contributions and expenditures as a "helpful move towards restoring confidence of voters"? Anyone who observed last week's 219-206 vote in favor of just such reforms might have assumed it was the Democrats, as members of that party cast all by two of the yea votes. But not so fast. The above phrases were lifted from the remarks made by House Minority Leader John Boehner and Minority Whip Eric Cantor.