One Good Book: No Major Scandal? No Campaign Finance Reform.

Nothing changes government like a crisis.

Demonstrators sponsored by the National Campaign to Impeach Nixon pass the White House and Washington Monument on a March to Capitol Hill on April 27, 1974 to urge lawmakers to speed up impeachment of President Richard Nixon. It was the first major protest in a year in the nation's capitol. Fewer than expected numbers turned out for the march and mostly were all young. 
UPI
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
July 18, 2014, 1 a.m.

Noth­ing changes gov­ern­ment like a crisis. Think of the re­cent con­gres­sion­al ceil­ings and cliffs, or a bit fur­ther back to the post-9/11 USA Pat­ri­ot Act and the Au­thor­iz­a­tion for Use of Mil­it­ary Force. Crises re­shape how Amer­ica treats its cit­izens, and how it be­haves in the world.

The Wa­ter­gate break-in sparked out­rage — and led to change. (UPI Photo)But gov­ern­ing by crisis isn’t any­thing new. The prac­tice dates back cen­tur­ies, and it has helped shape a broad range of Amer­ic­an policy. As Robert E. Mutch writes in his ex­haust­ive new his­tory of money in polit­ics, Buy­ing the Vote (Ox­ford Uni­versity Press, 2014),crisis helped mold Amer­ica’s cam­paign fin­ance sys­tem. And for more re­form to hap­pen, our polit­ic­al sys­tem may need an­oth­er crisis to come along.

Mutch ar­gues that a good scan­dal needs three com­pon­ents. First, the prac­tice at the root of the scan­dal must be something that the pub­lic finds im­prop­er, wheth­er or not it is ex­pli­citly il­leg­al. Second, people en­gaged in the prac­tice must try to hide it. Third, those people must then be found out, caus­ing, Mutch writes, “an out­raged pub­lic to de­mand that Con­gress ‘do something.’ “

In Mutch’s telling, two cycles of scan­dal have shaped cam­paign fin­ance re­form. The first was kick-star­ted in 1905 when the head of the in­sur­ance firm New York Life ad­mit­ted to Con­gress that his cor­por­a­tion had giv­en a $48,702.50 check to the Re­pub­lic­an Na­tion­al Com­mit­tee for the pre­vi­ous year’s elec­tion. On the heels of that came the rev­el­a­tion in 1907 that rail­road ty­coon E.H. Har­ri­m­an had raised $250,000 at the re­quest of Teddy Roosevelt for his 1904 cam­paign.

The res­ult: a ser­i­ously scan­dal­ized pub­lic and, ul­ti­mately, cam­paign fin­ance le­gis­la­tion. The Till­man Act, passed in 1907, barred cor­por­ate con­tri­bu­tions in elec­tions, while the Fed­er­al Cor­rupt Prac­tices Act (also known as the Pub­li­city Act) of 1910 re­quired the dis­clos­ure of cam­paign funds.

In the 1970s, a second scan­dal cycle would con­tain all of these ele­ments and then some. Mutch pos­its that the rev­el­a­tion that Richard Nix­on’s Com­mit­tee to Reelect the Pres­id­ent was hid­ing il­leg­al cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions wouldn’t have led to a land­scape-chan­ging scan­dal if not for its con­nec­tion to the Wa­ter­gate break-in. But the con­flu­ence of mis­con­duct res­ul­ted in the most wide-ran­ging piece of cam­paign fin­ance re­form le­gis­la­tion the coun­try had ever seen.

The Fed­er­al Elec­tions Cam­paign Act amend­ments of 1974 ex­pan­ded dis­clos­ure re­quire­ments, strengthened con­tri­bu­tion and ex­pendit­ure lim­its, and gave rise to the Fed­er­al Elec­tion Com­mis­sion. Un­for­tu­nately for re­formers, the law ran in­to the Su­preme Court, which in 1976 knocked down its ex­pendit­ure lim­its in Buckley v. Va­leo — a de­cision that gave us the dictum that money is equal to speech un­der the First Amend­ment.

That wasn’t the end of this scan­dal cycle, though. Mutch caps it off with the Bi­par­tis­an Cam­paign Re­form Act of 2002, also known as Mc­Cain-Fein­gold. The law was an out­growth of pub­lic frus­tra­tion over the in­creas­ing amount of “soft money” in the 1996 and 2000 pres­id­en­tial cam­paigns — but pub­lic an­ger really took off only when the En­ron scan­dal re­vealed just how much soft money busi­ness ex­ec­ut­ives were fun­nel­ing in­to elec­tions. (In Cit­izens United, the Su­preme Court would later evis­cer­ate these re­forms.)

Today, the sus­pect use of su­per PACs — which aren’t sup­posed to co­ordin­ate with polit­ic­al can­did­ates but of­ten ap­pear to cross that line — would seem to meet many of Mutch’s re­quire­ments for scan­dal. What’s lack­ing, however, is the kind of pub­lic out­rage that ac­com­pan­ied Wa­ter­gate or the turn-of-the-cen­tury epis­odes. Sure, it could hap­pen. But after years of de­clin­ing faith in gov­ern­ment, it’s hard to see what could once again startle Amer­ic­ans in­to bring­ing out the cam­paign fin­ance pitch­forks.

What We're Following See More »
CITES CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Lieberman Withdraws from Consideration for FBI Job
3 days ago
THE LATEST
MINIMUM 2 PERCENT GDP
Trump Tells NATO Countries To Pay Up
3 days ago
BREAKING
MANAFORT AND FLYNN
Russians Discussed Influencing Trump Through Aides
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

"American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers." The conversations centered around Paul Manafort, who was campaign chairman at the time, and Michael Flynn, former national security adviser and then a close campaign surrogate. Both men have been tied heavily with Russia and Flynn is currently at the center of the FBI investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Source:
BUT WHITE HOUSE MAY USE AGAINST HIM ANYWAY
Ethics Cops Clear Mueller to Work on Trump Case
4 days ago
THE LATEST

"Former FBI Director Robert Mueller has been cleared by U.S. Department of Justice ethics experts to oversee an investigation into possible collusion between then-candidate Donald Trump's 2016 election campaign and Russia." Some had speculated that the White House would use "an ethics rule limiting government attorneys from investigating people their former law firm represented" to trip up Mueller's appointment. Jared Kushner is a client of Mueller's firm, WilmerHale. "Although Mueller has now been cleared by the Justice Department, the White House may still use his former law firm's connection to Manafort and Kushner to undermine the findings of his investigation, according to two sources close to the White House."

Source:
BUSINESSES CAN’T PLEAD FIFTH
Senate Intel to Subpoena Two of Flynn’s Businesses
4 days ago
THE LATEST

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) and ranking member Mark Warner (D-VA) will subpoena two businesses owned by former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Burr said, "We would like to hear from General Flynn. We'd like to see his documents. We'd like him to tell his story because he publicly said he had a story to tell."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login