<x-flowed>
A couple of comments on the Corrado piece:
- The increase in small money donors is often highlighted as an
achievement of BCRA. What prevented the parties and/or individual
canddiates from targeting small contributors before BCRA? Nothing in
the law. There may have been cultural or organizational issues in the
parties, but these issues could have been overcome by lobbying the
parties to change their fundraising tactics, rather than creating BCRA
and its attendant compexities. For the Democrats, at least, it seems
that the congressional caucus should have been more than willing the
support changes in party fundraising, in light of their support of BCRA.
- Corrado reports that the Democrats are down $12 million relative to
2000 and the Republicans are up $62 million relative to 2000. As
Corrado points out, some portion of this net drop of $74 million for
Democrats is attributable to BCRA and was predictable in light of
Republicans' hard money advantages. In light of developments in
corporate tax policy, energy policy and other areas, it seems clear the
Republicans are friendly to corporations in many areas. Hence, to what
extent should we question the wisdom of trying the reduce the influence
of corporations on policy by predictably advantaging the party more
supportive of corporate-favored policies?
--
Michael Bailey
Associate Professor
Department of Government
Georgetown University
ICC, Suite 681
Washington, DC 20057
(202) 687-6021
baileyma@georgetown.edu
http://www.georgetown.edu/bailey/
Thomas Mann wrote:
Bob,
Sorry that you didn't engage any of the points Corrado (not Ornstein)
and I made in this morning's Roll Call. A few points about your defense
of Broder.
Bush opted out of public financing before BCRA. He would have done so
again with it. Fortunately for Democrats, Kerry followed suite.
Anything else would be irrational, not because of BCRA, but because the
presidential public financing program is hopelessly out of date and in
need of major repair. BCRA supporters correctly calculated that reform
had to be deferred.
I see a big difference between between elected and party officials
soliciting unlimited contributions from corporate and union treasuries
and wealthy individuals, on the one hand, and presidential campaigns
enlisting fundraisers/bundlers. The latter is a longstanding practice
and fully anticipated by BCRA's authors.
BCRA was not designed to reduce the amount of money in campaigns. Many
of us involved in the effort believe more money is needed. The problem
is with how it is raised and distributed. Hyperbolic floor statements
by some supporters cannot undue this reality.
The activities of outside groups were fully anticipated by BCRA
architects, Remember, the focus was on party soft money and
electioneering communications (60/30 day windows). The latter
constraints remain in effect, even for your 527 clients. We kept saying
the bill was modest; critics never accepted that.
Bottom line: the parties and candidates, working entirely with hard
money, are dwarfing the soft-money efforts of the new 527s. For the
relevant numbers, see
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/20040519corrado.htm It's not even
close. BCRA is alive and well.
Tom Mann
</x-flowed>