There's a sickening cycle in campaign finance reform, one that plays out over and over again at the federal and state level. Politicians show a little moxie and actually propose reform. Some, like (NY Gov. Eliot) Spitzer, even fight for change. Usually, incumbents or conservatives fight that change, as is happening in New York. And then, unless the politician is living in a monastery, he or she has to continue to raise money while the system remains unchanged.
Horrors! This is deemed hypocrisy. Gleeful opponents of reform point to the gap between legislative goals and ongoing fundraising. Lazy journalists, who understand that shouting 'gotcha' is far easier than spelling out who really stands to gain from blocking reform, go for the cheap story. And dismayingly, even some reformers reliably declare their outrage over the fact that politicians who support reform still have to fund raise, and that their supporters are not driven away with a stick but given the opportunity to meet with them.
This op-ed by Brennan Center for Justice executive director Michael Waldman, takes newspaper reporters, politicians and reformers to task for bashing people who are actually pushing for reform while playing by the rules of the game. It ran today in the Albany Times-Union. The rest of the piece is below.
Years ago, writing in The Washington Post, I called this the iron law of campaign finance reform: Flagrancy gets a free pass, hypocrisy gets you whacked.
Back then, I was steamed that Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., asked why he was raising soft money from lobbyists, shrugged and called it "the American way." He got no real criticism from the media. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., on the other hand, got creamed for raising funds while pushing for reform.
In an eerie echo of McConnell's brazenness, state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said that he blocked Spitzer's modest campaign reform proposals because of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
While the Times Union has been a vocal supporter of campaign finance reform and Spitzer's most recent proposals to lower contribution limits, it has joined news outlets and editorial pages across the state in giving ink and credence to Bruno's attack on the governor for refusing to unilaterally disarm. Political reporters and editorial writers across the state have been gamely repeating Bruno's trope ad nauseam that Spitzer is somehow doing something underhanded by continuing to play by the rules of the game while actively seeking to change them.
Few of those stories have included even a sentence about Joe Bruno's own record raising special-interest dollars. Rather they gamely quote Bruno like Claude Raines in Casablanca as being just shocked -- shocked! -- that Spitzer would offer access for contributors. Of course, contributors are getting access.
That's the problem. Too much access often leads to bad public policy. That's why we want reform. Bundling should be disclosed. But it isn't illegal and it won't go away until we pass public financing.
For me, personally, this resembles a scene out of "Groundhog Day." After a career working as a campaign finance reform advocate, I went to work in the White House for Bill Clinton in 1993. We crafted a public financing plan that won support from reformers and the leaders of the House and Senate. Opponents, however, played the media like a Wurlitzer. There was far more coverage of loopholes than of the actual strong bill.
The media put far more pressure on supporters of the measure not to raise funds than on opponents to drop their filibuster. And, sadly, reformers' knees jerked predictably, routinely denouncing hypocrisy as the people who blocked reform got off easy. Politicians who thought they were proposing something against their own electoral self interest, only to see little political gain and much political pain, shrugged and moved on to the next issue.
So here are some heartfelt pleas. To the media, stop being so easily manipulated, and start focusing on those who are blocking reform, and why they do it. To my fellow reformers, when a reporter calls demanding what's known in the trade as an outrage quote, why not try "no comment"?
And to those incumbents and power brokers who are scrambling madly to block reform, please set aside pious worries about hypocrisy and stand ready to explain your defense of an indefensible corrupt system.