Reform? Spare Me!!!

From IBD:

Posted 4/6/2006
Politics:

Did you hear? Congress has taken stern measures to clean up its act. Last week senators limited lobbyist influence. This week representatives capped spending by those dreadful "527s." That ought to do it.

But do what, exactly? That depends on your idea of an objective. If you're thinking the politicians have made themselves more angelic, well, then, not so much. But if you're a Republican member and want to project the appearance of Doing Something in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, you might be pleased.

There's a subtext: If you're a GOP member and want to disadvantage Democrats in the coming races, you're grinning lobe to lobe. That's because the Democrats have made much better use of so-called 527s — named for a tax code provision — that have benefited from the McCain-Feingold campaign reform.

That 2002 legislation, incomprehensibly upheld by the Supreme Court, lets soft money flow unlimited into politically motivated nonprofits. Though groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004 benefited the Bush-Cheney campaign by attacking Sen. John Kerry's war record, Democrat-leaning groups such as MoveOn.org actually raised more money.

As IBD's Sean Higgins reported Thursday: "In the 2004 election cycle, about $420 million was raised and spent by the 527 groups . . . mainly benefiting Democrats. Liberal financier George Soros alone donated $23 million."

Republicans started to worry that their large donor database was no match. So late Wednesday, in a party-line vote, the House voted 218-209 to limit 527s to the same donor limit imposed on political action committees, $5,000. At the same time, just to add confusion to the campaign finance muddle, it removed limits on what parties could spend on candidates.

If you're Rep. David Dreier, a normally level-headed California Republican, you might feel the satisfaction of getting even. Dreier opposed McCain-Feingold in part because it left soft money in its advantageous role of political grease. Wednesday night's legislation, he imagines, "restores balance and fairness to the system."

We're not the first to point out the rich irony, maybe even the hypocrisy, of the House Republicans' efforts. If the Democrats can limit Americans' participation in politics, goes their thinking, why, we Republicans can do it too. So there.

An unedifying spectacle, to say the least. Apparently, when the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, the House majority gave up on the prospect of starting over.

Why not scrap McCain-Feingold, which created this mess? Not only did that "reform" simply redirect political money into a more sophisticated shell game, but it also — preposterously, outrageously — bars soft money from buying television issue ads in the last days of a campaign.

If the court forgot about the First Amendment, then maybe Dreier and his colleagues should stand up and restore it.

What sensible Americans want most in political reform is simple enough: transparency. Let the rich and poor translate their passion into money, contributing to candidates and causes of their choice. Make them report what they've given and to whom. Let voters decide whether an elected official has been purchased.

That's reform enough and should inoculate us against the next effort of politicians to paint themselves as angels.