The University of Memphis was the first stop on a nationwide tour by members of Congress to drum up support for campaign finance reform.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), Marty Meehan (D-Mass.), John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn.) held a “town hall” meeting in the Faulkner Lounge at the University Center yesterday.
The Congressmen are hoping to build enough momentum to force the leadership of the House of Representatives to bring the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill to the floor of the House for a vote.
The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Feingold and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was passed earlier this year by a 59-41 vote.
“After years of gridlock, the Senate passed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill last April. The bill’s passage in the Senate presented the House with a historic opportunity to ban soft money, reduce the influence of special interests and begin to restore faith in the government,” Ford said in a statement released by his office. “However, this July, the opponents of reform used heavy-handed parliamentary tactics to prevent the Shays-Meehan bill from coming to a vote.”
The congressmen, along with Common Cause — a membership-based, non-partisan advocacy group that is sponsoring the tour — are attempting to get 218 members of the House to sign a discharge petition that would force the House to debate and vote on the Shays-Meehan bill. The group acquired 205 signatures before the Congressional recess earlier this year.
The Shays-Meehan bill would ban soft money — the unregulated, unlimited funds that flow into party coffers from labor unions, corporations and wealthy individuals — and raise the limit on hard money contributions to individual candidates. The bill would also set limits on “issue ads,” advertisements supposedly about issues that are often used instead to help or hurt a specific candidate.
“Soft money is a problem because it circumvents the campaign finance reform laws, which were supposed to limit the amount of money political action committees, individuals, corporations and labor unions could contribute to a candidate,” said Dr. Kenneth Holland, a U of M professor of political science.
Soft money is supposed to be used for non-specific, “party building” activities that are unrelated to influencing federal elections. Critics of soft money say the “party building” purposes are a sham, and donations are made in order for the donors to receive preferential treatment in return for their donations.
“Candidates who have strong ties to corporations or labor unions can have access to more money than candidates who do not,” Holland said. “That leads to favoritism towards large contributors.”
According to Common Cause, Democratic and Republican party committees raised a record $98,822,529 in soft money during the first six months of the 2001-2002 election cycle.
Democrats raised $33.3 million while Republicans amassed $65.6 million in donations.
Opponents of campaign finance reform legislation say that any law limiting how much they donate to political parties would be a violation of their First Amendment rights.
“The Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue and said Congress can put limitations on contributions,” Holland said. “People can spend, individually, what they want on behalf of a candidate, but Congress can put limits on contributions to political parties and force disclosure of contributions.”
“I think it is a really tough issue, and there are good arguments on both sides of the First Amendment issue,” said Steven Mulroy, law professor. “I think it is possible to structure campaign finance reform laws in such a way that they don’t run afoul of the First Amendment under current law.”
Mulroy suggests toughening disclosure requirements so voters understand who “the real party behind a contribution is.”
Requiring television and radio stations to provide free air time to candidates would eliminate the massive amount of money candidates spend to get on the air.
“If you really want to grab the bull by the horns and solve the campaign finance reform problem without any First Amendment issues, use public financing for election campaigns,” Mulroy said.
Mulroy said public financing for campaigns would allow for matching funds for both parties and place a ceiling on how much candidates can spend.
Congress currently restricts the source and size of donations made by individuals and political action committees to candidates for use in connection with federal elections, while corporations and labor unions are prohibited from making any donations in connection with a federal election.
