In Defense of Political Contributions

Four years after Maria Hsia, Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, the People’s Republic of China, a Buddhist temple and Loral Space and Communications, among others, were implicated in campaign finance abuses on behalf of Clinton-Gore ’96 and the Democratic National Committee, Congressional Democrats have determined there is an immediate need for campaign finance reform. Why?

The years-long movement to reform campaign finances received the breath-of-life from two high-profile business failures that improperly link campaign contributions with bad business behavior. Within months after Enron, the Houston-based energy trading company, became the largest-ever bankruptcy, Global Crossing, the Hamilton, Bermuda and Beverly Hills, California-based global fiber optic network company became the fourth largest-ever bankruptcy.

"In a week when we are all focused on the Enron mess, it is good news that we can begin to make progress on cleaning up our political system," said House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-MO) in late January before the House took up debate on the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.

The new urgency for reform began as a political tit-for-tat. Democrats pinned an amorphous Enron scandal on Republicans because Ken Lay and Enron gave more money to the GOP in the 2000 election cycle. In response, Republicans pinned an equally amorphous Global Crossing scandal on Democrats because DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe turned a $100,000 investment into $18 million.

Global Crossing and its employees together contributed $2.8 million in the 2000 election cycle, of that nearly $700 thousand came from employees. 55 percent of the contributions went to Democrats (figures from the Center for Responsive Government). For the purposes of full disclosure, I must count myself as among the Global Crossing employees who contributed to the campaign of George W. Bush and the RNC.

While the amounts are certainly large, the contributions are not necessarily scandalous. Global Crossing executives contributed to the candidates they supported. The once-President and CEO Leo Hindery and Co-Chairman of the Board Garry Winnick gave to Democrats out of their personal funds. But guess what, they’re life-long Democrats. The other Co-Chairman of the Board Lod Cook gave to Republicans. And who would have guessed, he’s a died-in-the-wool Republican.

Congress better be careful about what they ask for. Politics in this day and age is not cheap. Corporate and large individual contributions play an important role in financing much of what political parties must do.

Take for example the nominating conventions. Democrats and Republicans rent out major league sports facilities for thousands of party faithful and legions of press. Their conventions consume the cities in which they are held. To put on a national show like a political convention costs millions of dollars. Global Crossing contributed significantly to both the Democratic and Republican conventions in 2000.

What did Global Crossing get for their contributions? Global Crossing got the opportunity to sponsor events during the conventions. The new company, a certified leader in a new industry, got to get its name in front of many governors, senators and key congressmen. But in the sum total of the three or four hours that all of these events lasted, no public policy issues were decided.

If you want a real example of what Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC) calls “cash and carry” government, you have to go back to the 1996 campaign cycle when Loral Space and Communications and its CEO Bernie Schwartz were the largest contributors to Democratic candidates and committees. In that cycle Schwartz and his wife gave $1,122,000 to federal campaigns, of which $1,089,750 went to Democratic candidates and party committees (according the Center for Responsive Politics).

Loral was able to get President Clinton to approve a sale of guidance technology to the People’s Republic of China over the objections of Clinton’s own Departments of Defense, State and Justice. While Bernie Schwartz was sleeping in the Lincoln Bedroom, China was using his technology to target the United States – for the first time ever – with long-range nuclear ballistic missiles. But did these events stir any clamor for campaign finance reform? Certainly not like this.

If campaign finance reform wasn’t urgently needed after this Loral incident, it certainly isn’t now.

Global Crossing and Enron have unfairly become the poster children of political corruption by those who are sprinting to enact campaign finance reform. Whatever their business dealings may have been, there does not seem to be evidence that their political contributions corrupted government. The Senate has a chance to take a deep breath and properly scrutinize the sloppy bill that emerged from the House of Representatives and craft meaningful and fair campaign finance reform.

John Sidline writes a political column for RightTurns.com and can be contacted at sidline@rightturns.com.

Ok, we're outraged. But besides sending "veto this turkey" e-mails to president@whitehouse.gov, what do we do about it?

I like Sidline's point above about Loral. If it wasn't necessary in 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, why is it suddenly essential we rush to pass a bad law in 2002?

And what does Chris Shays stand for that's conservative???

Shays-Meehan is nothing but a ruse to assuage the restless slumber of the American electorate. No incumbent will be hurt in any way by it's enactment. Sellers of advertising will be affected, and that's where the cries of pain are arising. Rush says it's a constitutional issue, but that's simply because it's his ox being gored.

Meaningful CFR would be a damn good idea, but I don't want to stop anyone's excercize of speech. I would simply make it illegal for any PAC, corporation, union, or "group" of any kind to hide their contribution behind an acronym. Any American citizen should be able to support his candidate in whatever fashion he sees fit as long as he is willing to put his own name on the contribution. And as long as he can prove that he was personally responsible for whatever cost his contribution incurred.

Send letters to your local media expressing outrage as well. Inform your family and friends of www.MediaResearchCenter.com or MediaResearch.org and CNSNews.com.(I think) This is the media's baby. They are the ones we need to fight.

Bush made a very good point during the 2000 election. I believe he said "if you think I can be bought for a $1000 contribution, vote for someone else." Obviously no one is concerned about $1000 contributions in the presidential races. It's the $1,000,000 soft money contributions that cause concern.

I think the solution would be to raise hard money limits to $5000; Rush pointed out that the $1000 limit was set back in the day when a brand new Ford Mustang cost $2700, so a $5000 limit is peanuts.

Soft money should be allowed. I didn't even think about the conventions, and clearly we need conventions. We also need party building, so soft money should be allowed. I think the key to reform is in better disclosure rules, not in contribution limits, calendar limits or outright bans.

It would be great though if hard money becomes the staple of politics (as it was pre-1974). Republicans, if I recall correctly, have a 3-1 advantage in hard money and only a slight disadvantage in soft money.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.