Campaign Fund Raising: Who's Worse?
By Franklin
Foer
Republicans have been making
hay over revelations about Democratic fund raising. President Clinton asserts
that the Republicans have no right to talk. "They raise more money. They raise
more foreign money. They raise more money in big contributions. And we take all
the heat. It's a free ride." Does he have a case?
The national Republican
Party (the Republican National Committee, the Republican Senate Campaign
Committee, and the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee) does out-raise
its Democratic counterparts. In every two-year campaign cycle since 1976,
Republicans have brought in more total money . During the last cycle
(through Nov. 25, 1996), the Republican Party pulled in $548.7 million to the
Democrats' $332.3 million.
Campaign-finance laws break
these contributions into two categories.
1) Hard money :
donations that can be spent directly on candidates. Under the Federal Election
Campaign Act of 1974, there are strict limits on how much hard money
individuals and political-action committees can give. Corporate and union
hard-money gifts are banned. Here, the Republicans have their biggest
advantage. Last campaign, they out-raised the Democrats $407.5 million to $210
million.
2) Soft money : The
parties can accept unlimited contributions to pay for activities ambiguously
called "party building." In 1979 legislation that authorized soft money, party
building referred literally to the cost of building and maintaining a party
headquarters, as well as general promotional activities for the party. But
recent court decisions and creative interpretations by the parties themselves
have led to a much broader definition. Parties now spend the soft money on
funding TV ads, voter-registration drives, and get-out-the-vote campaigns. Few
distinctions remain between the application of hard and soft money. The soft
money can't be transferred directly into candidates' coffers, and the ads can't
explicitly promote or denigrate a candidate, which in practice just means no
use of the words "vote for" or "vote against." In the last campaign, the
Democratic Party received $122.4 million in soft dollars and the Republicans
received $141.2 million.
The
Republicans' edge in soft money reflects their greater success in raising
big contributions . Soft money is donated primarily by corporations, and
by individuals and PACs already maxed out on hard money. According to the
New York Times , last year the Democrats had 45 soft-money contributions
over $250,000, while the Republicans had at least 75.
However, good-government groups, like Common Cause and the
Center for Public Integrity, emphasize that these figures , based on
reports filed with the Federal Election Commission, are deceptive . They
exclude donations to state parties that are transferred to both federal and
nonfederal candidates. These donations can be substantial. Last week the
Washington Post reported that the former Democratic National Committee
fund-raiser John Huang raised $482,000 through various state parties; and
Rupert Murdoch donated $1 million to the California Republican Party.
Union
Money . Republicans argue that if you count the AFL-CIO's spending on behalf
of Democratic candidates, the Democrats' fund-raising total surpasses its own.
Unions gave $4.7 million in soft money to the Democrats, and just $800,000 to
the Republicans. But that is reflected in the soft-money totals. What isn't
reflected is so-called "independent expenditures" on behalf of Democratic
candidates. Under a 1976 Supreme Court ruling, the First Amendment forbids any
legal limits on such spending, as long as it is truly independent of the
candidates and the parties.
Independent expenditures are not reported to
the FEC. Republicans say that organized labor spent $200 million to $500
million promoting Democratic candidates last year. They cite AFL-CIO officials
who claim the organization spent $35 million on a radio-and-television ad
campaign alone. In addition, the unions sponsored voter guides and a
get-out-the-vote campaign. AFL-CIO officials deny spending anything close to
the figures that Republicans estimate.
Similar independent
expenditures benefited Republican candidates. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce spent $7 million on advertising in support of GOP candidates; the
Christian Coalition spent $1.4 million on voter guides promoting conservative
candidates; and the National Rifle Association put up another $1.5 million that
mostly helped Republicans.
Foreign money travels two routes into party coffers: 1) direct
contributions by foreign companies and individuals, which are flatly
illegal; and 2) soft-money contributions by American subsidiaries of foreign
companies . Last week, the DNC announced that it would no longer accept
either type of foreign money. However, there are currently no federal laws
prohibiting the second category.
But what does Clinton mean when he says the Republicans
"raise more foreign money"? If the statement refers to illegal foreign money,
then his claim lacks evidence. In the last campaign cycle, Democrats returned
$1.5 million in contributions because they may have come illegally from
foreigners. Republicans have only returned a single check for $15,000.
As for legal donations by
American subsidiaries, Republicans lead in this category, as in all corporate
receipts. But the data are incomplete. A study by Common Cause of contributions
through Oct. 18 showed that the Republicans received $2.4 million from American
subsidiaries of foreign companies, and the Democrats took in $532,000. The
Democrats' new prohibition on such contributions is a definitional nightmare.
Is MCI, now owned by British Telecommunications, forbidden to give? Is Honda of
America, which has 12,000 employees in Ohio, allowed?
Republicans argue that even though they receive more big contributions, the
Democrats are more egregious about special favors for contributors . The
Clinton White House has offered big givers tennis matches with the president,
at least one coffee with a federal regulator (Clinton has admitted that this
one was wrong) and, most notoriously, overnight stays in the Lincoln
Bedroom .
However, Republicans also "sold" social
engagements with the president when they controlled the White House, and have
made a variety of explicit and implicit promises of access to policy-makers.
For instance, during the Bush years, the RNC enticed donors by offering them
rides on Air Force One with the president and Baseball Hall of Famers Joe
DiMaggio and Ted Williams. Also, the New York Times recently reported on
a fund-raising letter sent out by the GOP last January, guaranteeing
$250,000-level donors access to Speaker Gingrich and Republican presidential
candidates.
One party or the other may
have a niche where it excels or is especially trouble-prone, but neither party
can claim clear moral superiority.
