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 »
STARTS LEGAL FUND FOR WH STAFF
Trump to Begin Covering His Own Legal Bills
20 hours ago
THE DETAILS
DISCUSSED THE MATTER FOR A NEW BOOK
Steele Says Follow the Money
21 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

"Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who wrote the explosive dossier alleging ties between Donald Trump and Russia," says in a new book by The Guardian's Luke Harding that "Trump's land and hotel deals with Russians needed to be examined. ... Steele did not go into further detail, Harding said, but seemed to be referring to a 2008 home sale to the Russian oligarch Dmitry Rybolovlev. Richard Dearlove, who headed the UK foreign-intelligence unit MI6 between 1999 and 2004, said in April that Trump borrowed money from Russia for his business during the 2008 financial crisis."

Source:
BRITISH PUBLICIST CONNECTED TO TRUMP TOWER MEETING
Goldstone Ready to Meet with Mueller’s Team
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The British publicist who helped set up the fateful meeting between Donald Trump Jr. and a group of Russians at Trump Tower in June 2016 is ready to meet with Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's office, according to several people familiar with the matter. Rob Goldstone has been living in Bangkok, Thailand, but has been communicating with Mueller's office through his lawyer, said a source close to Goldstone."

Source:
SPEAKING ON RUSSIAN STATE TV
Kislyak Says Trump Campaign Contacts Too Numerous to List
22 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak said on Wednesday that it would take him more than 20 minutes to name all of the Trump officials he's met with or spoken to on the phone. ... Kislyak made the remarks in a sprawling interview with Russia-1, a popular state-owned Russian television channel."

Source:
“BLOWING A SURE THING”
Sabato Moves Alabama to “Lean Democrat”
1 days ago
WHY WE CARE
×
×

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