Faced with the question of how best to reform our current system of financing federal campaigns, once again, the House of Representatives has put posturing and partisan politics ahead of realistic and substantive public policy.  Instead of working for a bipartisan and constitutional approach that could actually improve the system and be signed into law, the House leadership opted for a repeat of the unproductive debate we had a year ago.
 
Most everyone I talk to in Minnesota says that big money has too much influence in our current system -- and I agree with them.  The system we have in 1999 is not good for our system of representative government, and it is certainly not a good experience for individuals who want to run for the U.S. House or Senate.

How did we get into this mess?  The system we have today is largely the product of two things -- the work of “public interest groups” and others who helped to write and pass the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1979, the last major campaign finance reform legislation to be enacted, AND subsequent court decisions that struck down portions of that same law and left us with a law full of loopholes and unintended consequences.

Many of these same groups were pushing the new “Shays-Meehan reform bill” in the debate we just concluded.  However, when I studied the bill I realized that portions of it are clearly unconstitutional, and I think it is safe to say that if Congress passed it and it was signed into law by the President, the courts would be involved very quickly, and would strike down portions of it.

One element of “Shays-Meehan” involved restrictions of the rights of groups and individuals to broadcast what are termed “issue ads.”  These ads advocate a particular point of view, and may even criticize a candidate’s position on one or more issues, which is legal under current law because they do not mention a candidate by name.  The specific restrictions on “issue ads” in the “Shays-Meehan” bill appear to be patently unconstitutional.  The bill’s proposed restriction on political free speech is clearly an assault on the rights of individuals and groups to engage of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  This would never withstand the court challenge that would surely follow

On the positive side, the “Shays-Meehan” bill proposed to eliminate the flow of so-called “soft money” to political parties.  I support this idea, but in conjunction with the other problems I had with the bill, this was not enough.  In the end I voted against the Shays-Meehan bill because it would have only a minimal effect on the problems of too much money, further protect incumbent officeholders, and attempt to restrict the free speech rights of groups and individuals.  And when all was said and done, and the courts had a chance to sort through it all, instead of truly reforming the system this bill would only deliver another set of unintended consequences.  If you think it is a mess now, imagine how it would be if all of the “soft money” that currently goes to the political parties was going into “issue ads” on your radio and TV.

What we need is a publicly financed system like we have in Minnesota.  Our system has already withstood the court challenges, and in election after election, we have seen it work fairly and reliably.  And maybe most importantly, it has provided all candidates -- incumbents, challengers and political newcomers -- with a real opportunity to compete for public office.

The “Shays-Meehan” bill has served one good purpose; it has forced Members of the House to think about the issue of campaign finance reform.  However, if we are going to reduce the impact of big money and restore public confidence in our system of government, I think we have to give honest consideration to a system of public finance for all federal campaigns.

Back to Top