Inside the Bradley-McCain Handshake
At their joint
appearance in Claremont, N.H., today, Bill Bradley and John McCain seemed to be
saying much the same thing about campaign finance reform. Both see the present
system as murderous to democracy. McCain said at the event what he has often
said before: that reform is required in order to "give the government of this
country back to its citizens." Bradley, using somewhat stronger language,
described big money a "plague," an acid "eating away at the core of our
democracy" and as "a great stone wall that comes between the people and their
representatives." As the two men also explained in a Nightline forum
taped before their "handshake," they both support an outright ban on soft
money--the huge, unregulated contributions funneled into the general election
by way of the political parties.
But Bradley and McCain don't fully agree about campaign finance reform. Some
of their differences are subtle ones grounded in their respective political
orientations. For instance, Bradley the Democrat thinks that special-interest
money works primarily to prevent the government from passing useful new laws,
like health-care reform and regulation of handguns. McCain the Republican
thinks that special-interest money causes the government to waste money on
unnecessary programs and prevents it from cutting ones it should get rid
of.
Other distinctions visible today point up temperamental differences between
the two men. McCain, who is more of a risk-taker, feels so strongly about soft
money that he has promised not to accept it should he become the nominee no
matter what his Democratic rival does. Bradley, more cautious by nature, has
declined to take a pledge of unilateral disarmament. McCain is also more
categorical about his moral indictment, saying at the press conference
following today's event that special-interest money corrupts everyone in
politics, himself included. Money, he said, buys access, and "access is
influence." Bradley, by contrast, said no decision he had ever made was
influenced by money, merely that he resented the suspicion--the appearance of
impropriety--that is unavoidable under the present system.
But when it comes to what sort of reform is necessary, Bradley and McCain
actually have big disagreements that they didn't illuminate today. Basically it
comes down to this: Bradley's idea of campaign finance reform is
comprehensive . He wants to eliminate the role of private money from
politics once and for all. McCain's approach, on the other hand, is
incremental . He will be satisfied with reducing the role and power of
special-interest money in Washington.
Bradley believes that the entire system of financing campaigns needs to be
overhauled. To do this, he thinks, will require not only banning soft money and
providing free TV air time to candidates, but also full public financing of
congressional elections and a constitutional amendment to overturn Buckley
vs. Valeo , the 1976 Supreme Court decision that defines spending as speech.
In Claremont, Bradley employed the metaphor he also uses in his book: "Money in
politics is similar to the ants in your kitchen," he writes. "Just when you
think you've got them blocked, they find another way to get in. Only
hermetically sealing the kitchen off will work." We need to amend the
Constitution and provide full public financing, he writes, because "anything
less means that democracy can still be corrupted."
McCain agrees with Bradley about how harmful special-interest money is. But
his own solution is much more modest. McCain doesn't think it will be possible
to eliminate the influence of private money from politics, or that doing so
would even be desirable. He wants to stamp out the most pernicious abuses--the
enormous contributions by corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.
And he hopes to level the playing field for challengers and incumbents by
providing free airtime for candidates. But McCain does not favor public
financing for congressional campaigns and doesn't think it's necessary to amend
the Constitution to get meaningful reform.
I'd give a lot of credit to both McCain and Bradley for trying to explain
this complex problem and make it into a major issue in the campaign. But I
think that McCain's less ambitious, piecemeal approach makes much more sense
than Bradley's comprehensive one. Bradley's desire to solve the problem once
and for all is understandable, but his approach is dangerous. Amending the
Constitution should always be a last resort. And in this case, the alternatives
haven't been exhausted. It's not clear that Buckley v. Valeo prevents
genuine reform--or that even if it does, the corruption of the current system
is severe enough to warrant tinkering with the Bill of Rights. And in practical
terms, what's the point of even discussing a constitutional amendment--which
requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate as well as ratification by the
states--if you don't have a majority to pass a simple bill?
Bradley's sweeping proposals also cut against the nature and history of the
problem. Political reform in this country has never taken the form of systemic
reengineering. Instead, it has always been a frustrating but productive
process, one in which rising expectations and public outrage lead to
ameliorative legislation and higher ethical standards. Bradley ought to
understand this, not only because he's well-versed in the history of political
reform--there's a chapter on the subject in his book--but because the challenge
of campaign finance reform is so similar to that of tax reform, which was his
own greatest legislative accomplishment as a Senator. Passed in 1986, tax
reform was undone over the course of the following decade. The post-Watergate
campaign finance reforms were unmade in a very similar way--smart lawyers and
lobbyists opened loopholes. The loopholes expanded, and eventually got to the
point where a fresh set of reforms was needed. Just like campaign finance
today.
