There has been little publicity about the Fatherhood Act of 1999, a bi-partisan bill that would allow local groups to help non-custodial fathers (and mothers) develop better relationships with their children. With angry partisanship dominating the Congress right now, one might expect such an example of bi-partisan cooperation to get more coverage. The bill was ignored by the media because instead of dealing with billions of dollars, it only deals with millions. But the bill was also ignored by many politicians. That is because unlike many recent bills, the Fatherhood Act will not serve as a bargaining chip for a big soft-money donation.
Soft-money donations, the fastest growing area of political contributions, primarily consists of un-regulated funds that are donated to the political parties by corporations, unions and any other interest group that wants to have an influence on politics. The amounts of money spent in the form of soft-money are so huge, that many political analysts believe it is crowding out the smaller, regulated, hard-money donations of John Q. Voter. The crowd-out effect is believed to be one of the major causes of voters' growing disinterest in politics.
Luckily for Mr. Voter, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold are attempting, yet again, to pass campaign finance legislation this week. The most recent incarnation of the McCain/Feingold bill has been stripped down to one provision which would bring an end to soft-money donations. Although similar legislation has already passed through the House, McCain/Feingold is unlikely to pass through the Senate. Republicans think it is too strict; Democrats think it is too weak. And even if McCain/Feingold managed to become law, there is a very strong possibility that the Supreme Court would strike it down as being unconstitutional. Based on a 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Court has recently been overturning state campaign finance laws left and right. According to the Court's interpretation, campaign donations can be limited, but not outlawed because they are a form of speech. In other words, in order to prevent McCain/Feingold from being overturned, there would have to be evidence of corruption as a result of soft-money donations to the political parties.
Despite the difficulty in proving corruption, most Americans would agree that interest groups, corporations and unions have too much influence in the political system. Even the most hardened conservative will concede that Americans are more cynical about politics and participating in our democracy nowadays. It's hard to give power to the people if the people aren't interested in exercising their voting power. Although there have been hundreds, if not thousands of alternative solutions suggested for solving the problem of campaign finance, there is one solution that might be more effective than any other.
Taxes are the bane of all Americans. One of the most popular arguments against taxation is that they discourage investment. If you are going to lose 10-20 percent of your investments to the federal government, what is the point of making the investment in the first place. Therefore, the best way to discourage soft money donations is by taxing the soft money. Taxation (much to the chagrin of certain libertarians I know) has yet to be ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Therefore the government has the freedom to tax your freedom of speech, in this case soft-money donations. To expound on this, perhaps it would also make sense to make the soft-money-tax incremental. A soft money donation of $1 million could be taxed at 20 percent, and then at an additional 1 percent for every $5 million increase in donation, capped at 30 percent. This means that a $51 million soft-money donation (practically pennies in today's high-priced campaigns) would earn the American tax-payers a sum of $15 million.
Some might argue that this tax is unfair because it means the parties would have less money to spend in campaigns for poor, unknown or minority candidates. On the other hand, outlawing soft money would make it almost impossible for the parties to participate in such races. The soft-money ban would however, give a huge advantage to candidates like Steve Forbes, who can spend unlimited amounts of their own money. The solution there might be to use the tax revenue to create a trust fund for public financing of general congressional elections. Presidential elections currently have a public financing system based on a $3 voluntary donation from tax-payers. However, this new public financing system would be entirely financed by the tax on soft-money donations, instead of the tax-payers' hard-earned money. Better still, we could put the money towards the national debt and guarantee social security for the next 100 years.
There are many other problems with focusing on soft money as a way to fix campaign finance reform (especially since it would do nothing to deal with the problem of responding to mud-slinging "issue ads" on television, one of the greatest costs in a campaign.) That being the case, perhaps the best solution to campaign finance reform has nothing to do with money. If every politician conducted themselves like the ones who created the Fatherhood bill; with dignity, respect for their colleagues, and with a willingness to compromise, perhaps the mud-slinging, issue ads and massive campaign coffers would become meaningless. There would be no need for McCain/Feingold in such a world, because elections wouldn't be about money, they would be about the issues. Since our current elected officials don't seem to be very interested in changing the campaign finance system, perhaps it is time go out and find people who are. And if we are really lucky, these new politicians who aren't interested in money, will get elected just before hell freezes over.
