Again With The Campaign Finance?

A Solution In Search Of A Problem
by
Mike Schrimpf

Last Friday afternoon. Vermont Governor Jim Douglas vetoed a campaign finance bill that sets stringent contribution limits.

The bill seeks to reduce "the risk…that candidates and elected officials will not act in the best interests of all Vermont citizens" by limiting the amount of money that an individual can contribute to a political campaign or political committees.

The bill alleges that some elected officeholders "respond" more favorably to large contributors than those who contribute lesser amounts.  The bill's definition of "respond" is left (purposefully?) vague, but the implications are clear: Unnamed legislators are being unduly influenced by campaign contributions.

Unfortunately for the bill's proponents, such sweeping allegations about legislative impropriety do not square with the facts.  Multiple academic studies show that campaign contribution limits do not unduly impact legislative outcomes.

In an article published by the University of Chicago Press, political scientists Stephen Bronars and John Lott showed that campaign contributions follow ideology and do not buy legislative outcomes. Instead, legislators vote according to their own beliefs, the views of their constituents, and the positions of their party.

Similarly, three professors at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a paper demonstrating that there is little or no evidence that campaign contributions have a systematic effect on policy outcomes.  Such a conclusion is not at all surprising to anyone who follows politics.  After all, no one expects a pro-choice organization to give to a pro-life candidate in the hopes of "buying their vote," or vice versa.

Nonetheless, the bill limits the amount of money that an individual can give to political candidates, and it restricts how much an individual can contribute to "political committees."

Governor Douglas, in his veto message, expressed concern that the contribution limits to candidates would be incumbent protective.  He has good reason to worry.

Incumbents often enjoy significant advantages over their challengers in name recognition, and they can secure media coverage through their official duties. In order to compete, challengers must spend money to get their message out. But stringent contribution limits severely restrict the ability of challengers to raise and spend money, thus locking in place the advantages of incumbency and making challenger campaigns more difficult.

While the contribution limits are burdensomely low and may be incumbent protective, the most troubling aspects of the law may actually be tucked away in an obscure corner- the definition of what constitutes a "political committee."

Granted, the terms "political committee" or "political action committee" conjure up negative reactions in most people's minds.  But, take a moment and think about what really constitutes a political action committee (PAC).

PACs are simply groups of like-minded individuals who join together in order to support a candidate who shares their views.  For example, the National Rifle Association's PAC allows its members to support candidates that support gun rights.  Similarly, the Sierra Club's PAC allows its members to support candidates that support environmental protections.

The vetoed law would severely burden the right of citizens to join together in support of a candidate.  The bill would limit PACs to the same contribution amounts as individuals, thus making groups of individuals who believe passionately in an issue, like 2nd amendment rights or climate change , and who want express the importance of that issue in political campaigns, on par with sole individuals.  The bill also limits the amount of money any single person can contribute to a political action committee in a two year cycle.

Now, such limits on political action committee giving are arguably justified in order to prevent individuals from circumventing individual contribution limits by creating a plethora of PACs that can contribute directly to a candidate.

But would a limit on the amount that an individual can contribute to a "political committee" still be justified if that political committee refuses to contribute to or coordinate with candidates, and instead advocates independent of candidates?

Many First Amendment proponents would argue that the above circumstances should free citizen groups of contribution limits.  The First Amendment mandates that the government provide a compelling reason for speech regulations.  The most often court-recognized justification for imposing contribution limits is to prevent the corruption, or its appearance, of officeholders.

Advocacy conducted independent of a candidate cannot be corrupting because the opportunity for quid-pro-quo does not exist.

Nonetheless, according to the vetoed law, "a 'political committee' or 'political action committee' means any formal or informal committee of two or more individuals, or a corporation, labor organization, public interest group, or other entity, not including a political party, which receives contributions of more than $500.00 and makes expenditures of more than $500.00 in any one calendar year for the purpose of supporting or opposing one or more candidates, influencing an election, or advocating a position on a public question in any election or affecting the outcome of an election."

Vermont's definition of a political committee is, at best, ambiguous in its aim and its intent could be a sly way to regulate independent citizen groups. In fact, the language as written is susceptible to legal challenge. The Voter Education Committee (VEC) asked the Supreme Court in March to review a case that has major implications for states with campaign finance laws like Vermont's.

The VEC challenges a Washington state law which requires any organization that supports or opposes a candidate or ballot issue to register as a "political committee" absent of express advocacy. They challenge that the language is overly broad and, therefore, chills First Amendment rights. Vermont's political committee definition is similar to Washington state's and thus susceptible to the same legal challenge.

Mike Schrimpf
Communications Director
Center for Competitive Politics

(ed. note:  the last three paragraphs of this essay have been slightly revised.)

Comments

[Dart Everett]

Interesting that the three Pres. candidates have raised nearly $1,000,000,000, and there has been nary a peep from the Campaign Finance Reformers. Why? Well, obviously it's because most of that $1,000,000,000 has come from liberals for liberals. Even liberals don't bite the hand that feeds them.
Thanks for your columns.