Campaign Finance, Spending & Electing Quality Candidates

One of the greatest political problems we face is meaningful campaign finance reform. It is not a new problem. Politicians, especially those at higher levels of government (state or federal), have historically developed scandals involving lobbyists, campaign fund raising, influence peddling and closing out access to ordinary citizens. There have also been scandals involving sex and violence.

A short list would include the following:

• Abramoff Scandal: Lobbyist using money from clients to provide "lucrative favors" that line the pockets of campaigns and politicians;


• Cunningham Scandal: Millions of dollars received by Randall "Duke" Cunningham from lobbyists and those seeking preferntial access or treatment;


• Savings & Loan Scandal: The so-called Keating Five and congressional influence over an investigation of improper activities at Lincoln Savings & Loan


• ABSCAM Scandal: A DOJ/FBI sting operation that netted congress members taking bribes from supposed oil-rich Arab business or government representatives;


• Koreagate: A scandal where South Korean representatives sought to influence 115 members of congress;


• House Banking Scandal: House members developed a habit of writing bad checks and leaving congress with outstanding overdrawn checks from the House bank;


• Individual Scandals: Issues and scandals of influence peddling, access or questionable activities involving former Majority Leader Tom Delay, Rep. Bob Ney, Rep John Conyers, Rep. Curt Weldon, Rep. William Jefferson, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, and others;


• USA Patriot Act: The rush through of the Patriot Act without full considereation of its potential for abuses and violation of the Constitution is scandalous;


• Teapot Dome Scandal: A scandal involving influencing senators regarding national oil reserves and public land use;


• Chappaquiddick: A scandal involving the death of a young woman that took a ride from Senator Ted Kennedy and accusations of cover-up and preferentuial treatment;


• McCarthyism & House Committee on Un-Amercian Activities: A scandal involving both houses of congress where careers and reputations were ruined by unscrupulous accusations and unfounded allegations;


• Strom Thurmond's Segregationist Scandal: A scandal that revealed Thurmond's hypocritical posturing on racial segregation, white supremacy and the fact that he had an African-American daughter;


• The Salary Grab Act scandal; A scandal involving salary increases for the president and Supreme Court justices, but also a hidden pay grab by members of congress;


• The Star Routes Scandal: A scandal involving lucrative routes and contracts for US mails and involving Senator Stephen W. Dorsey;


• The Nixon Checkers Speech scandal: A scandal invoving then Senator Nixon's alleged improper campaign fund-raising of some $18,000;


• Congressional Post Office Scandal: a scandalous scheme that laundered money through the House post office;


• Chinagate scandal: A scandal involving members of the executive and leiglative branches being influenced by Chinese government representatives and finance funding;


• Congressional Page scandal: A scandal involving improper sexual relations between congress members and pages serving the House of Representatives;


• Newt Gingrich scandals: Over 80 allegations of scandal and finance misconduct by the then Speaker;

As we can see, congress is no stranger to scandal. If we start including White House scandals, the problems of campaign finance and influence peddling becomes all the more important. Despite all of the scandals and improprieties, we can never seem to get our collective heads togather regarding campaign finance reforms. The recent SCOTUS case illustrates some of the constitutional barriers to reform. The list of scandals involving congress critters points to the absolute need for campiagn and conduct reforms.

High Court Questions Limits On Campaign Spending

From the intense questioning of the justices during Randall v. Sorrell, the Court seems poised to reject the severe limitations on both campaign donations and spending that Vermont's Legislature enacted in 1997. Candidates for legislative offices are restricted to spending as little as $2,500 in a campaign, while individual donations are capped at $200 in a two-year election cycle in some races.

The law amounted to a frontal assault on the Court's 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which held that government could limit campaign donations but not how much a candidate could spend. Expenditure limits would violate a candidate's free speech rights, the Court said then.

Driven by increasing concerns over the corrupting influence of campaign money, reform advocates had hoped the high court might be ready to reassess the Buckley dichotomy. But Tuesday that seemed unlikely; both the spending and the donation limits seemed too severe for the justices' approval.

None of the justices who asked questions Tuesday -- including those who have accepted campaign reform measures before -- appeared sympathetic toward Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, who defended the law.

"Why aren't these limits way too low?" asked Justice Stephen Breyer, who said the law ends up favoring incumbents, who may not need as much money to gain name recognition among voters. Justice David Souter, who also usually supports campaign limits, said a candidate who faces a primary fight "is going to be broke" by the time the campaign for a general election begins.

"It's very odd for a United States government to say 'Enough speech,'" said Justice Antonin Scalia. "You're constraining speech." Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. emphasized that voters who are upset about campaign money have the remedy of voting candidates out of office.

Sorrell countered that the government had "core constitutional interests" in enacting the law, including keeping candidates and officeholders from the distraction of nearly constant fund raising. Though no Vermont officeholders have been prosecuted for corruption in recent years, he said the threat of corruption is "far from illusory."