The horns are out and blaring to announce the upcoming
elections, and the ever-conscious political pundits and bloggers
are catching on to whispers of the GOP possibly losing the House to
the Democrats, raising the price tag on many congressional races.
Money is flying everywhere, or at least it has just begun to, and
as most Americans have come to realize, election spending has no
real limits.
Limitations on campaign spending by candidates themselves were
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a landmark case
in 1975 (Buckley v. Valeo) and the court upheld that precedent in
2006 (Randall v. Sorrell).
So, protected by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
freedom of speech, the wealthiest Americans have once again
received the sanction to sit at the table with their bushels full
of money to play politics.
Essentially, the Supreme Court has equated the power of the
purse to the freedom of expression through Buckley v. Valeo, hence
the tendency to lean away from governing both citizens’ and
politicians’ “monetary” activities.
But I have a problem with how this game is played in the
elections that we are about to vote in, namely those in the House
and the Senate. For members of the House especially, running every
two years brings up immediate and large necessities for campaign
funds; senators feel the pain every six years.
According to the Web site for the Center for Responsive
Politics, even incumbents such as Pete Stark (Democrat, California
District 13) have admitted to being harrowed endlessly in the
search for funding even after being in office for 33 years.
While addressing a student group I was a member of last year,
Stark informed us that most congressmen have to stop work on the
Hill every one and a half years to raise funds for the next
election ““ that amount of time is equivalent to 25 percent of
their term spent worrying about money. Sen. Diane Feinstein, who is
up for election again this year, had already raised over $5 million
by last December in preparation for her race this year.
Still, questions arise about the alleged neglect of the First
and Fourteenth amendments. I admit that the limitations on
congressional candidates would hamper their freedom of expression
somewhat, but it would be in the interest of increasing the
integrity of government and the productivity of those already in
office.
A cap on spending would also open the door to more candidates at
the local level, increasing their opportunity to run and even hold
offices that are now almost impenetrable due to incumbency rates,
which range from 95 percent in the House to 90 percent in the
Senate .
This campaign reform legislature, however, has to better suit
our system of government. According to the Wall Street Journal,
since receiving its green light from the Supreme Court in 2003, the
famous McCain-Feingold bill has hampered the progress of concerned
individuals in political organizations instead of reigning in the
heavy donors.
While the law limited “soft” money donations from
union groups and companies, it actually increased the amount
permissible to individuals while making donations to the candidate
of their choice. Political parties cannot be donated to and the
activities of Political Action Committees are also hampered by this
reform act .
The main problem with this piece of legislature is that it was
all too sweeping in its attempt to address all candidates in all
branches of the government ““ everyone from state governors to
presidents.
When we adopted the idea of federalism, the whole point was to
ensure the separation of the different levels of government and
government officials. State and national offices are entities
separated not only from each other, but also from the more local
offices, each with its own set of rules that (hopefully) encourage
efficient coordination with the others.
It is unreasonable to expect a law to monitor campaign spending
in all the levels of government in the nation. A truly effective
campaign spending act would be drafted by Congress to address just
congressional candidates, their campaigns and their
constituents.
E-mail Joshi at rjoshi@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments
to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.