Chat with Chic, July 10, 1987

Chat with Chic A Report from Washington FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Mike Miller July 10, 1987 (202) 224-6244 By U.S. SENATOR CHIC HECHT Eastern liberals in Congress, spurred on by Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause, continue to press for what they term "Campaign Reform", but as the debate continues it begins to look like liberal-style reform is merely another example of the cure being worse than disease. Unfortunately, even some of our own politicians seem to be marching in lockstep with the liberal establishment. The current crusade which calls for campaign-spending restrictions and public (taxpayer) financing is based on half-truths. In a recent "Chat with Chic" column, I focused on my strong opposition to taxpayers funding senate elections. I still haven't received a letter supporting public funding for senate campaigns. Beyond the arguments involving tax dollars going for election purposes, I wonder if campaign reform is really necessary. Robert J. Samuelson, in the July 7, 1987, edition of The Washington Post, wrote: "Campaign-reform is a respectable-sounding idea that's a fraud. Campaign reform would cure problems that don't exist with solutions that would restrict free speech, smother elections in bureaucratic rules and hurt candidates' chances of beating incumbents. It's an odd way to celebrate the Constitution's 200th birthday." According to Fred Wertheimer, the campaign contributions of "special interests" have corrupted politics. They have done no such thing. Our government of checks and balances requires competing groups check each other. The system isn't perfect, but it does curb the influence of campaign contributors. Common Cause likes to talk about the dangers of political action committees (PACs), but the assertion is weak. PACs remain a minority of all contributions. In 1986 they totalled only 21 percent for the Senate and 34 percent for the House. The more than 4,000 PACs are diversified, which dilutes their influence. There are business PACs, labor PACs, pro-abortion PACs, anti-abortion PACs, and the list goes on. Contributions were fairly evenly split last year between Democrats ($74.6 million) and Republicans ($57.5 million.) There's no question that special interests do descend on Capitol Hill. That's a democracy. One person's special interest is another's crusade or career. As government has grown, so has lobbying by groups affected, i.e. farmers, seniors, doctors and teachers. Finally, it is important to note that money doesn't necessarily determine who wins elections. The recent mayor's race in Las Vegas is a good example. The loser spent in excess of $800,000, while the winner spent less than $500,000. In last year's U.S. Senate races, political scientist Michael Malbin reports that six of seven Democrats who ousted incumbent Republicans were out spent by an average of about 75 percent. There are too many other influences to make money decisive: the economy, party loyalties, personalities, issues, national mood. I've always subscribed to the theory that it is not necessary to fix something that isn't "broke". Campaign reform that adds another layer of federal bureaucracy in order to * restrict group participation in politics is not reform. To ask taxpayers to pay the tab for expensive senate campaigns is even worse. I don't often agree with The Washington Post, but campaign reform ij; a fraud.