The World: The Years Best Stories

Funds Go Softly Into the Night
by Alex Parker
4/6/01

America stands on the brink of dramatically changing its campaign finance laws after the Senate voted 59-41 to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, commonly called the McCain-Feingold bill.
This is an important issue for many Oberlin students. Many feel that politicians often compromise on important issues because of large donations to their campaigns. This became a major issue during last year’s presidential election. Not only was this a driving issue for McCain’s campaign to get the Republican Party nomination, but it was also critical to those supporting Green party nominee Ralph Nader, who contended that there was no difference between the candidates of the major parties — that they had both been bought by their contributors.
The bill outlaws “soft money,” or the unregulated donations allowed under current campaign finance laws for “party-building” purposes. It also restricts “issue advertising,” or ads run by labor unions, corporations, and independent groups which show a candidate’s name or likeness 60 days before an election. Soft money was virtually unknown in the early 1980s, but ballooned in the late ’80s and ’90s to become a very large percentage of the total money spent.
However, some feel that the cure may be worse than the disease.
“We’re not supporting the bill,” Senior Ellen Montgomery said, the liaison of the Oberlin chapter of the Ohio Public Interest Research Group.
Specifically, it is raising the limits for “hard money,” or individual contributions to candidates, that OPIRG opposes. Currently, one can donate up to $1,000, but McCain-Feingold was amended to raise the limits to $2,000, or even more for someone running against a self-financed candidate. The total aggregate sum a person could give was raised from $25,000 to $37,500.
“Raising the hard money limits is actually letting more money in politics,” Montgomery said. “We basically don’t think it’s productive.”
The $2,000 limit was a compromise between Democrats, who wanted no raise at all, and Republicans, who wanted to see the limits raised to $3,000 or more. Those supporting the raise argued that it was simply an index for inflation — $1,000 in 1976, when the limit was established, is worth approximately $3,300 today.
OPIRG states that the low number of people who donate money to campaigns — one ninth of one percent of the population, according to their figures from the Center for Responsive Politics — shows how a raise is unnecessary and will “increase the stranglehold of the wealthiest citizens on our political system,” according to their website.
But other campus organizations still support the bill.
“We’d like it to be better than it is,” junior Dave Karpf, former national director of the Sierra Student Coalition, said. “But it’s definitely a step in the right direction.” He said that he opposes raising the hard money limits but still supports the bill. “Should we pass more in the future? Yes. But it’s a huge step.”
Even some connected with OPIRG support the bill.
“It’s a step forward, and when else are we going to take it?” First-year Ben Newhouse, who works with OPIRG, said. He also said that there has been internal conflict within the organization about whether to support the bill.
But despite the Senate victory, the bill has a long way to go before becoming law. A battle in the House of Representatives is expected, over the bill’s counterpart, the Shays-Meehan bill. It has passed by comfortable margins in the past, but many think that this year opposition will be more organized. President Bush has hinted that he would like to sign some reform bill but has declined to mention McCain-Feingold specifically. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, considered to be the most ardent opponent of campaign finance reform, has vowed to fight the bill if it becomes law by challenging its legality.