Clyburn (SC06) - Statement - Campaign Finance Reform Bill Needs Work

When election time rolls around, I hear two common complaints that feed voter apathy. One -- “my opinion doesn’t matter.” Two -- “I don’t know where to vote and I don’t know anything about the candidates.” The end result is these potential voters don’t participate in the process.

My fear is that the campaign finance reform package passed by the Senate will serve only to strengthen these arguments and have an even more chilling effect on voter participation. The bill, referred to as McCain-Feingold after its sponsors, does two things that will result in even more potential voters questioning their impact in the political process. First, the legislation will raise individual contribution limits from $1,000 to $2,000 while not increasing political action committee (PAC) contributions. Second, it bans soft money contributions. To anyone other than a political activist, this jargon means nothing. Let’s translate this into terms every voter will understand.

I think everyone grasps the concept that doubling the current $1,000 individual campaign contributions means the rich will be able to buy even more influence at election time. Most of the voters in my district can’t fathom giving a politician $1,000, much less twice that. However, many of my constituents can, and do, contribute $5 or $10 dollars regularly to their employer’s good government fund or whatever name which may be given to their political action committee or PAC. This is their only means of having influence in the political process. And yet McCain-Feingold sends the message loud and clear that company CEO’s and directors carry a lot more weight with elected officials than the people who work for them, because they are allowed to put more money in the politician’s coffers.

The second and perhaps more troubling issue is the bill’s ban on soft money. What is soft money? It is money used to support political activities not directly related to a particular candidate. One example is the unlimited contributions made to political parties to assist in their campaign efforts. Both parties use these funds to conduct voter registration and education and get-out-the-vote effort, many of which take place at community meetings, and festivals; on college campuses, and in shopping malls. Educating voters can take the form of media events, candidate mailers, or public forums. Getting-out-the-vote might be phone calls reminding voters when the polls are open or supplying rides to polling places. All of these activities, which are critical to the success of minority voters, will be virtually wiped out by McCain-Feingold.

This legislation does nothing to take the money out of politics. What it does, in essence, is take away political participation from those with limited power, position, and finances. Many of my colleagues in both the Black and Hispanic Caucuses agree that McCain-Feingold will take away our constituencies’ inclusion in a significant part of the political process. These are the same voters whose rights were badly trampled during the November election. Yet the effort to reform campaigns has focused solely on financing failing to address the critical election reforms that need immediate attention.

Efforts are under consideration to amend any campaign finance reform legislation with a sense-of-the-Congress resolution calling on the Bush administration to make fighting the disenfranchisement of minority voters a Justice Department priority. The concern is that if the opportunity to focus election reform passes without addressing the voting rights issues raised in the last Presidential election, then those efforts will not be revisited.

I am not opposed to campaign finance reform. My record reflects that I have voted both for and against such efforts in the past. The bottom line is that my constituency has specific concerns about the way campaigns and elections are currently carried out, and McCain-Feingold will only compound their concerns rather than alleviating their fears.