Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

The McCain-Feingold Act was written to give traditional media more power in the coverage of national campaigns. It was obvious to all who paid attention to deliberations at the time. The restrictions placed on placing campaign ads on television and radio did nothing except limit anyone but “news” organizations from commenting. The proclaimed goal was to eliminate “soft money” from influencing elections, yet really did nothing except pass this regulatory power to the FEC–a non-elected entity. The soft money simply went elsewhere. And it came out in even greater force in 2004. McCain is now pushing to restrict that. More restrictions, never a real solution.

Incumbents love the media. They can get face time on television just about any time they want, and voters seldom remember anything about their film clip except the name. And that is good–for them. But there may be another reason why there is a media exemption in the law:

No wonder McCain-Feingold contained a “media exemption.” The media — on top of having their voices amplified when private citizens, labor unions and corporations are barred from speaking — are relatively easy to write some checks to. (Millions of bloggers, on the other hand, might be a little harder to corral — hence the calls for a crackdown.)

I can tell you from personal experience that bloggers are definitely difficult to corral. I have an email address as “wormherder” at a group blog for a reason.

When McCain-Feingold was enacted, there was little doubt that the major parties and incumbents had already figured out a way around it. So it is with one of its authors, Senator John “Maverick” McCain. As Ryan Sager points out, McCain is the Chair of the Advisory Committee for the Reform Institute:

The Institute, according to its Web site, is technically a not-for-profit 501( c )(3) organization, “representing a thoughtful, moderate voice for reform in the campaign finance and election administration debates.”

In reality, however, the organization might better be dubbed McCain 2008 headquarters. The head of the Institute’s advisory committee is none other than McCain, and his name appears in every other press release. What’s more, the manager of McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, Rick Davis, is president of the institute and draws a $110,000 a year “consulting fee” — at least until the official campaign gets underway.

Major donors who wish to flatter the senator’s vanity and give a boost to his presidential ambitions can write checks to the Institute in amounts that would be illegal many times over (under McCain-Feingold) if the checks went to the actual McCain campaign.

The foundation lists donors from 2001 to 2004. It was founded about the time the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was being written. Coincidence? No. The foundation was formed to promote the McCain-Feingold legislation.

This biggest problem I can see with Campaign Finance Reform as it stands, and as people perceive it, is that the focus is on monetary donations. Attempting to restrict the way people “voice” their preferences by using their checkbook is absolutely the wrong approach. But there are some changes in financing that might make it a little more effective.

At the end of a campaign, a candidate must empty his campaign coffers into a common fund. This money will be divided equally among the various candidates across the country for the same level of office next election. That is, all the money which comes from senatorial campaigns will be divided among the candidates running for the Senate in the next election. Use it or lose it. No building up your treasury chest over the years for a big final push at some later date or for some higher office. No saving of that money for your retirement by putting it into a non-profit organization which you will eventually chair, and no passing it along to some other candidate. Done.

No candidate for the House or Senate may accept money from someone outside his constituency boundaries. A candidate for the Senate can accept contributions from only within the state. A candidate for the House can only accept donations from people within that District.

Political parties cannot accept donations from anyone except candidates and individuals.

Finally, and most important, only individual American citizens may donate to a political campaign. No organization can contribute.

Better still, in my view, would be laws dictating how that money is spent. Having lots of money means nothing if you aren’t allowed to spend it freely. If you restrict spending of campaign finances, having exorbitant amounts means nothing.

Candidates for President are allowed only two visits to each state. They are allowed an additional visit during the primary in that state. If they use all three during the primary, they are not allowed to campaign there during the general election campaign.

Candidates for the Senate and House must travel via car or bus for campaigning during the year of the election. They are allowed to fly from Washington to their home. From there, all travel is on the highways. An exception is granted for visits to towns more than 300 miles from their home. Senate candidates are required to visit at least 50% of the cities in their state with population greater than 100,000 and 25% of towns smaller than that. House candidates must visit every town in their district at least once during election year. A visit is defined as a speech before the general public in an open forum, with at least one hour of open question and answer. Incumbents may not miss more than 10% of votes on bills during their campaign. Resolutions and other such nonsense are excluded.

Perhaps those numbers need work. I’m sure our Congress can put together a Blue-Ribbon Bipartisan Panel to hash them out. That would take a couple of election cycles, I’m sure.

What can bloggers do to improve the campaign finance laws? Write. What can all Americans do? Write–to your Congressman and Senators. If they aren’t flooded with letters, nothing good will hapen. And the Incumbent Protection Act will simply get stronger in favor of those in power.

Dagney’s Rant
Major Dad 1984
Ogre’s Politics and Views
XBIP