Fixing Campaign Finance

THE SENATE Rules Committee plans to mark up campaign finance legislation today that would help finish the important job Congress started three years ago when it barred political parties from vacuuming up the huge sums known as "soft money " from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. The measure would require outside groups that are designed to influence federal elections to abide by the same contribution rules as other players in the campaign finance system.

These groups, known as 527s for the section of the tax code under which they're established, are by definition "organized and operated primarily" to influence elections. When those elections are for federal office, it makes no sense to let such groups collect six-, seven- and even eight-figure checks to elect or defeat candidates, while other entities (candidates, political parties and political action committees) are limited to raising money in contributions a fraction of that size. Similarly, corporations and labor unions can't give directly to political candidates or parties; why, then, should they be permitted to write checks to 527s, which exist for the same purpose?

As the Rules Committee marks up the 527 Reform Act, lawmakers must beware of two rear-guard attacks that could severely undermine its usefulness and jeopardize Congress's ability to pass reforms. One involves the dangerous notion that the 527 issue should be addressed not by reducing the size of the checks these groups can collect but by easing contribution rules for those who play within the federal election system. This misguided approach is embodied in a House proposal, sponsored by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.), which -- though it's titled the 527 Fairness Act -- wouldn't actually do anything about 527s. Rather, it would remove the overall limit (currently just over $100,000) on how much individuals can give to federal candidates and political parties in the course of a two-year election cycle. Instead, individuals would be free to give up to $1,160,200 to a single political party and $2 million or more to federal candidates per election cycle. Even worse, elected officials or candidates could solicit such mega-donations. One of the most impressive developments of the 2004 campaign was the emergence of large numbers of small-dollar donors. Changing the law to enable more big givers to give more big checks is unwise and unnecessary.

Another risk is that lawmakers will put some forms of spending off-limits for 527s while letting the groups collect and spend big checks for other purposes. One such proposal would bar 527s from using unlimited contributions to run advertising but would allow them to spend such funds for partisan voter mobilization activity -- getting their own voters to the polls. If, as we think, it's a problem to let big checks influence federal elections, there's no reason to allow these checks to be used for some forms of influencing voters but not for others. The point isn't how the money is spent but from whom, and in what denominations, it's coming.