Commenting on the latest Senate attempt to reform our campaign finance laws, the Tribune joins the chorus of the opponents of reform by declaring that the best “reform” is to abolish all contribution limits and rely on “full disclosure.” I believe this is an irresponsible position because it will not protect the public from corruption or the appearance of corruption, which, as the Supreme Court said in the Buckley decision, is “inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions.”
Although broader disclosure of campaign contributions is a welcome reform, it won’t dislodge the public cynicism that has grown as hundreds of millions of dollars flow to the political parties from corporations with a direct stake in legislation. And disclosure surely won’t protect the public from the effect of these contributions on the legislative process. That effect is real, not imagined.
Too much legislation in Congress caters to huge campaign contributors rather than to average citizens. For example, the Telecommunications Act we passed in 1996 was a sweet deal for big contributors with a stake in that legislation. Meanwhile consumers have lost out–they now face steeply higher cable TV bills and only uncertain promises of competition in the local telephone markets. It’s good to know who is seeking influence with huge contributions, but it’s pointless if we simultaneously make it easier to wield that influence by declaring “anything goes!” about the size of those contributions.
We won’t replenish the American public’s withering faith in Congress by throwing up our hands and eliminating all limits on contributions.
