It’s no surprise that “change-minded” Democrats are mute on the issue of transforming the so-called toxic effect of money in politics. Since Democrats now have an overall cash advantage, why alter the game?
No doubt, Barack Obama possessed the Midas touch when it came to fundraising in 2008. But other factors related to how campaign finance laws affect the two parties are also at work. Evidence suggests political reforms aimed at limiting the parties’ ability to raise resources have a disproportionately negative impact on the GOP. Consider some recent history. The campaign finance system in 2008 offered John McCain a Hobson’s choice. He could reject public financing and spend most of his time trying to compete with the Democratic nominee’s money-machine. Or, he could accept the $84 million in federal funds and get buried by the avalanche of Obama cash.
It’s unlikely that more financial resources alone could have saved the Republican presidential nominee. But it would have closed the huge advertising gap McCain faced in the last month of the campaign. The ad-tracking firm CMAG found Obama outspent his Republican opponents four-to-one in the final weeks of the campaign, according to University of Massachusetts political science professor Raymond J. La Raja.
Ironically, Republicans had a role in writing the very laws that put their nominee in this difficult position. Most opponents of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) passed in 2002 blame Republican sponsors such as McCain, who was indeed one of the co-authors of the legislation. But President George W. Bush also played a role in its enactment by signing the bill.
And the irony for Republicans continues. When Mr. McCain chose to accept the limited federal funds, he also had to rely on the Republican National Committee to help fill the money gap. But national political committees were severely restricted in their money-raising abilities, by – you guessed it–the BCRA. Prior to enactment of the 2002 reforms, national political committees, like the RNC and DNC, could raise large sums of money not regulated by the federal campaign finance laws because it was used for issue advertising (not specifically advocating the election or defeat of candidates), party-building, get-out-the-vote efforts, or administrative purposes. Because these funds were outside the scope of federal campaign limits on contributions, it was called “soft money.” BCRA banned these contributions.
Professor La Raja agrees that both recent elections and history underscore a fundamental point about campaign finance reform: Changes aimed at restricting political parties usually hurt Republicans more than Democrats. In his new book Small Change: Money, Political Parties and Campaign Finance Reform, La Raja points to several historical examples where new anti-party regulations hamstrung the GOP.
This is because the more disparate Democratic party has always relied on a wider assortment of outside allies, according to La Raja. “Throughout much of the party’s history, the Democrats never used the central organizing model of the Republicans because the party has always been a looser construction of political interests,” he argues in the book. “Instead, allied interest groups–labor unions, environmental groups, African-American churches and community organizations–have engaged voter mobilization for party candidates. In contrast, the Republican Party lacks a natural, member-oriented organization that pulls in volunteers and mobilizes voters. Beyond the Christian Right, whose enthusiasm varies depending on the candidate’s affinity for their goals, the Republican Party must rely on the party infrastructure.”
In other words, reforms aimed at political parties don’t limit money but rather scatter it throughout the system. And due to the differences between the two political parties in America, the dispersion of finances tends to benefit Democrats because their political culture includes more allied groups who benefit from a distributional big bang.
Not long after last November’s election, the RNC sought to overturn portions of the BCRA restrictions on soft dollar contributions. It’s unclear whether these efforts will succeed. If they don’t, Republicans will have to encourage the formation of alliances with non-party, allied groups – like the Democrats do–to help fill the financial hole. It won’t be easy, and it won’t be pretty. It will also likely move more money, power and influence back into the unreported shadows. At least major political committees like the RNC and DNC have some public accountability because of their close links to elected officials. Under today’s new collection of 527 organizations and 501 (c) groups, it’s like we’ve entered a new Wild West period of politics in America.
But don’t look to the Obama administration or Democrats in Congress to help topple the current system. The “reforms” imposed by the BCRA did the same thing that previous changes in the campaign finance laws have done–stack the deck against the GOP.
Gary Andres is vice chairman of research at Dutko Worldwide in Washington, D.C., and a regular contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
