Campaign Finance Reform Gives Undue Influence to the Wealthy

Beginning Nov. 6, the day after Election Day, "soft money" contributions effectively will be eliminated from the national campaign scene and severely limited on the state level thanks to the Shays-Meehan Act, which became law in March.

Soft money includes contributions from labor unions, corporations, individuals and other interest groups that are usually given to political parties and political action committees.

On the surface, a law like Shays-Meehan might appear to be a good idea. After all, soft money contributions are, on the whole, generally unregulated and could allow certain large entities to have a significant influence over public-policy makers.

However, what the supporters of campaign finance reform fail to mention is that the legislation greatly increases the role wealthy individuals will play in financing political campaigns and thus the influence they will have in the public policy process.

Proponents of campaign finance reform argue that keeping big-dollar donors from having too much influence on the political process will encourage more citizens to become involved. These supporters argue that soft money is often used by political organizations to run negative attack ads that have turned many people away from politics.

Not so. In fact, just the opposite is true. I know from my work with the N.C. Republican Party that most soft money contributions are used to pay for grassroots political activity such as door-to-door campaigning and personal telephone calls, not negative ads.

Many of these grassroots activities involve college students, which will only encourage them to become more involved in the political process, not less. And it also brings the people contacted more closely into the political process by putting a face with a particular party or candidate instead of just an advertisement.

But without soft money, most political parties will refrain from or severely limit the amount of grassroots activity they perform. That's a shame too since this specific type of campaigning has been proven to increase voter turnout and political participation more than anything else.

While Shays-Meehan regulates soft money, it doesn't curb the amount of money individuals can give to their own campaign. This gives wealthy candidates the upper hand.

Consider, for example, the current U.S. Senate race taking place in North Carolina. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic U.S. Senate contender Erskine Bowles had put more than $1.3 million of his own money into his campaign as of Oct. 1. His Republican opponent, Elizabeth Dole, had contributed only $30,000 to her campaign. Since then, Bowles reportedly has pumped $100,000 a day of his own money into his campaign.

It's no secret that Bowles, a businessman, is far more wealthy than Dole, who has been a lifelong public servant. The majority of the money taken in by both campaigns is being used to purchase television and radio airtime. As it stands now, a political action committee or the Republican Party could use soft money contributions to run ads promoting Dole. Democratic entities could do the same for Bowles.

But if this election were being held in 2004 instead of now, that would be against the law. Instead, Bowles, who can afford to pump millions of dollars of his own money into his own race, would still be able to purchase as many negative ads as he wants, while Dole, who doesn't have Bowles' personal fortune, would be left high and dry.

It is clear that with this sort of "campaign finance reform," big money and the wealthy win while average citizens are locked out of the process.

Reach Michael McKnight at mmcknigh@email.unc.edu.