The House of Representatives today took up a bill to limit donations to nonprofit political groups that played a major role in the last presidential election, requiring so-called "527" organizations to obey federal campaign laws that apply to political parties and action committees.
Floor debate on the bill produced a role reversal of sorts, with Republicans who had opposed a 2002 campaign finance reform law rising in support of reining in the 527 groups, while most Democrats who had supported the law argued against the new measure.
GOP lawmakers said they simply want to close a "loophole" in the campaign finance reform law that allows wealthy contributors to influence elections through unlimited donations of "soft money" to 527 groups, which take their name from the section of the tax code that governs them. Soft money refers to largely unregulated donations that are not made directly to a candidate's election campaign.
Democrats charged that the Republicans are trying to hamstring their opponents through the bill because the Democrats have been more successful lately in using 527 groups to advance their agenda.
My concern about this debate is this. While the Republicans are happily trying to limit political donations to these 527 groups that the Democratic Party relies on even more than the Republicans, what are these same Republican representatives doing about enormous hard and soft money contributions that are given to Republican congressmen by wealthy businesses, lobbying groups, political or business interest groups and trade associations? What about limiting corporate contributions, or contributions lobbying groups that represent business interests? Any time that I see legislation introduced into Congress that touts campaign finance reforms, I have to ask myself which political party is going to come out ahead as a result of this "reform" legislation?
If you want to take the money out of politics, you have to take it out of both sides of the equation. That means that both Democratic and Republican politicians cannot take money from individuals, corporations, interest groups, lobbying groups, 527s, PACs, or any such group, where the monetary contribution is used to influence a politician's vote according to such group's particular interest. You would have to introduce some type of publicly-financed campaign system--and both the Democratic and Republican Parties would refuse to accept such a system. In addition, such a publicly-financed campaign system would probably have to fall on all political offices--presidential elections, congressional elections, and state and local elections throughout the country. I don't know if such a system could ever be created, and I don't know where the money would come from for financing these elections.
UPDATE HERE: Looks like the House passed the bill to limit political donations. Here is the Yahoo News story:
WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday voted to limit the multimillion-dollar donations to nonprofit groups that changed the face of American politics in the 2004 presidential election.
Majority Republicans said they were closing what they contended was a gaping loophole. Democrats portrayed the vote as an effort to undercut their supporters.
Republican support carried the day in the 218-209 vote to cap contributions to "527" political groups. The outcome was a sharp turnaround from 2002, when Republicans resisted the successful Democratic-led legislation to limit campaign spending.
Majority Republicans said they were closing what they contended was a gaping loophole. Democrats portrayed the vote as an effort to undercut their supporters.
Republican support carried the day in the 218-209 vote to cap contributions to "527" political groups. The outcome was a sharp turnaround from 2002, when Republicans resisted the successful Democratic-led legislation to limit campaign spending.
Democrats claim the main GOP objective is to undercut groups that are antagonistic to Republican causes. They say constricting 527s would shift political contributions to other business and social welfare organizations, categorized as 501(c) groups; these groups have some restrictions on political activities but, unlike 527s, do not have to identify donors.
The limits would "hamstring independent groups while they keep open the flow to trade organizations that can spend unlimited amounts of money," said Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "They are restricting unions and these independent groups. That is just mean-spirited."
You can bet the Republicans will not touch the 501(c) groups--the last thing they want is to have the 501(c)'s being forced to identify their big business and rich elite donars.
No comments:
Post a Comment