July, 2002

Congress, a few decades late, has enacted Political Fund-Raising Reform!

Wow!

Or, maybe not wow! but woof! which is wow with another vowel, as in old dogs and, particularly old dogs who know how to masquerade behind not-so-new tricks.

It seems the Commissioner of the Federal Election Commission, who turns out to be a Democrat by the name of Karl Sandstrom (lest I again be charged with hounding Bush), has some concerns. The legislation, already full of convenient holes, generally outlaws the large donations known as 'soft money.'

But Sandstrom worries that the national parties might face frivolous lawsuits, filed simply to syphon off their cherished 'hard money,' those limited donations made directly to help candidates.

Excuse me? Frivolous lawsuits? C'mon now, Karl.

He's working on an amendment, but has to check out its constitutionality before introducing it. In case you're not up on such matters, that's code for can we get away with it?

The Commission also voted to exempt state and local party committees from reporting any soft money they spend, as long as they don't mention federal candidates. Karl and his committee are busy sandbagging the building against flood except, of course, the back door, where union and corporate money can sweep in. They've even found a way to widen the back door.

Don Simon, a lawyer for Common Cause, the citizen group that pushed the original legislation, says "It means, potentially, that a lot of soft money can be run through local party committees that could spend it on federal election activities without having to disclose the source of the money." Common Cause predicts the amount of soft money will actually increase.

Sandstrom's committee has decided (4 to 1 vote) that the only way a federal candidate or officeholder could violate the ban on raising soft money would be to explicitly ask for it.

By that decision, the Federal Election Committee unsandbagged the front door as well.

Soft money is spent to buy candidates, as in owning their vote after they've been elected. I guess those who want to buy a candidate can figure out how to do it without being explicitly asked.

Sandstrom says he's trying to protect free speech rights. It always slays me that the right to bribe is protected by the 1st Amendment.

On his FEC website, the Chairman waxes eloquent about his responsibility. "I have three main objectives in fulfilling my duties:

Ê to promote full and timely public disclosure of campaign funding;

Ê to enforce the limitations and prohibitions of the law; and

Ê to encourage citizen participation in our elections by providing clear, practical rules.

To my mind, the Commission is successful to the extent that it contributes to the American people's confidence in the integrity of our elections."

Swell, Karl, but the recent shenanigans by your august committee have done damned little to contribute to my personal confidence in the integrity of our elections. Sounds to me like business as usual.

Oh, and lest I forget to mention---the committee, in their infinite wisdom, also voted to allow state and local parties to use soft money on the Internet. When you get spammed, just prior to the coming elections, I suggest the following:

Thank Karl Sandstrom by e-mail (commissionersandstrom@FEC.gov)

Get out of the Archives and read what Jim's writing today