THE COLOR OF MONEY
"The spot attacked President Bush for his failure to sign a hate-crimes bill when he was Texas governor, and was widely reported to have been paid for out of a $10 million donation from a single anonymous donor"
July 15, 2001
From The New York Times
Is Green the Only Color That Counts?
By PHILIP SHENON
WASHINGTON — When the advocates of
campaign finance overhaul rail against the
evils of big-money politics, they often point to
anonymous lobbyists for oil or tobacco or insurance
companies who buy millions of dollars in television
time before an election to air slick corporate pitches
masquerading as voter education.
For black members of Congress, there is pride at the memory of at least one issue ad. It was part of what was described as the biggest political advertising campaign ever organized by African-Americans, and was produced last year by the N.A.A.C.P. National Voter Fund.
The spot attacked President Bush for his failure to sign a hate-crimes bill when he was Texas governor, and was widely reported to have been paid for out of a $10 million donation from a single anonymous donor.
Ads like that, from people not generally associated with big-money politics, have generated some of the most interesting arguments over the McCain-Feingold bill,which was intended to overhaul the campaign-finance system.
The fight over the bill might have been expected to divide more neatly along
liberal-conservative lines, but some politicians and advocates at both ends of the
political spectrum wound up as allies, opposing passage out of a belief that money
was an essential part of making a democratic political system truly democratic. In
the business of getting your agenda a fair hearing in the arena of government, they
said, money was necessary. And the unexpected rebellion by some black and
Hispanic members of Congress raised the question of whether the only remedy ever
available to groups shut out of the mainstream has been to buy their way in.
McCain-Feingold was shelved last week after a nasty parliamentary scuffle in the
House, but it has been passed in the Senate, and if it is revived in the House and
signed by Mr. Bush, it would severely curtail the ability of nonprofit groups to pay
for television or radio ads that mention a candidate by name.
The desirability of restricting such activity has turned into a bitter debate, in part
between free-speech advocates, who warn that money can be the only way to be an
effective influence on national issues, and those who say the laws must be rewritten
to prevent donors with the deepest pockets from drowning out every other voice.
The bill's opponents also included such strange bedfellows as the American Civil
Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association, the American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Right-to-Life Committee.
Planned Parenthood has not come out formally against the bill but has warned that
its ad restrictions would amount to a "gag rule."
ALL interest groups that want to affect the political process would be hurt by this,"
said Laura W. Murphy of the A.C.L.U. She said that blacks, Hispanics, Asians,
gays and other minority groups were right to see the bill as an effort to curtail their
free speech at just the moment when many of them had learned to use the
campaign-finance system to make their voices heard.
Joel M. Gora, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, said that political speech has
never been free.
"There's always been a link between free speech and money to fund that free
speech," he said. "In the early days of the republic, you printed up leaflets to
communicate your political views. But you needed resources to buy a printing press
or pay someone else to print up the leaflets for you.
"In today's mass culture, it's just common sense that you have to have resources to
communicate effectively. Any laws that restrict your ability to pay for communication
restrict your ability to communicate."
Supporters of McCain-Feingold note that neither the civil rights movement of the
1960's, nor the anti- war campaigners of the 1960's and 1970's had great financial
resources. And the movement promoting the McCain-Feingold itself has had few
deep pockets.
Fred Wertheimer, the former president of the public interest lobbying group
Common Cause, said that free-speech advocacy groups were inaccurately
portraying the bill as an unconstitutional effort to end fund-raising by interest groups.
"Their argument is based on the idea that someone is talking about taking all money
out of politics, and no one is," he said. "What we're saying is that far too much
money is being spent on broadcast advertising, and not enough time and effort is
being spent elsewhere."
In the maneuvering last week on Capitol Hill, the sponsors of the House version of
the McCain-Feingold bill spent much of their time courting the Congressional Black
Caucus. If the bill is resuscitated in the House, the caucus and its 36 House votes
may determine if it becomes law.
But a number of black House members are refusing to commit to the bill, which at
its heart would outlaw so-called soft money, the unlimited, unregulated donations to
national political parties, which are supposed to be used to help the party rather than
individual candidates.
A caucus member, Representative William Lacy Clay, a Missouri Democrat, said a
soft-money ban could be "political suicide" for Democrats, who raise nearly as much
soft money as Republicans but who trail them badly in other types of fund-raising.
SUPPORTERS of McCain- Feingold, like Donna Brazile, a Al Gore's campaign
manager, argue that political outsiders, in seeking to play the political money game,
will never be anything more than second-class citizens. They will always be
outstripped by the mainstream players, who will maintain control of the levers of
political power — so long as they are moved by money.
To Ms. Brazile and others, the only solution is to level the playing field, as far as
money is concerned, and then return to building support for candidates and issues
handshake by handshake, door to door, and community by community.
Representative Albert R. Wynn, a Maryland Democrat, who co-sponsored a far
less sweeping alternative that would curb but not outlaw soft money, disagrees. He
and other minority lawmakers say that soft-money donations have been essential to
them in organizing programs to register minority voters and get them to the polls.
Black and Hispanic Democrats in the House also say that better fund- raising raises
their influence in Congress and within their own party. Because they tend to win by
far larger margins than most incumbents, minority members have long complained
they are taken for granted and do not get their fair share of the party's campaign
resources.
"If the ban goes into effect, it's really going to be tough," said Ronald Walters, a
professor of government at the University of Maryland and a specialist on minority
politics. "The party doesn't give a lot of campaign money to black candidates as it is.
If they have even less of that money, they will not only be seen as less effective; they
will be less effective."
nytimes.com |
