EDITORIAL Political 'soft money': Buy a politician by any other
name
Money is pouring into U.S. political campaigns in record amounts.
Some is legal, much probably not, little of it ethical, little of it supportive
of true democracy. Cynicism grows across the land. Big money bribery is the way
of life. But folks may be slowly waking up. Or so we can hope.
In the 1970s, big money had gotten out of hand. Reform legislation
was passed. Faced with new limits of $2,000 per candidate for individuals and
$5,000 per candidate for political-action committees (PACs) -- an amount
established in 1974 and never since adjusted -- the flood of powerful interests
had to find other paths.
Slowly at first and now in torrents, unethical money is pouring
into candidates' pockets through what is called the "soft money" loophole:
contributions to political parties rather than directly to the candidates. The
law states such money can only go for "party-building activities." Forget that.
You are watching the money being spent on television political commercials.
They are just a little more subtle than before, smearing candidates but not
directly telling the viewer how to vote.
The money, of course, goes to buy candidate favor. It's called
access. Ordinary folks, who pay their full share of taxes, a mortgage, car
payments and raise children don't have this access. They are viewed as people
to whom nothing is owed.
This campaign season has seen "the most massive violation of
campaign finance laws since Watergate," says Ann McBride of Common Cause. She
has demanded that an independent prosecutor investigate both major parties. But
it won't happen before the election -- or likely lead anywhere after. The
powerful interests won't allow it.
Trial lawyers are the largest contributors to the Clinton
campaign. They have been paid through his veto of a bipartisan bill that would
have prevented nuisance suits in the securities industry. Dole's record makes
him a dismal candidate to be pointing a finger. As chairman of the powerful
Senate Finance Committee, he routinely took money from interests with
legislation under his jurisdiction.
Dole has worked to help the California-based Gallo label promote
its sparkling wine to the category of a more expensive champagne. According to
Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Dole's top aide pursued the
matter on a daily basis. Dole also supported a bill that eased inheritance
taxes for one family -- the Gallos. And guess which family has been pouring
money into the Dole campaign.
For a perspective: 99.97 percent of Americans don't make political
contributions of more than $200. But the other .03 percent of the population
does have real political influence. It's their government -- and will remain
that way until enough of us get angry enough and kick up a fuss. Have you had
enough?
National Catholic Reporter, November 1,
1996
|