Campaign finance needs structural reform
 |
Ronald M. Levin, J.D. Campaign Finance Reform |
Professor Ronald Levin, an expert on administrative law and the law of the legislative process, feels that the allegations of campaign finance abuses against Vice President Gore are somewhat exaggerated.
"Allegations of this kind reflect a regrettable tendency to regard what may have been technical violations of law as signs of a character defect," said Levin.
Levin alluded, for instance, to Gore's admission that he made fund-raising calls from his White House office. "The basic purpose of the Pendleton Act was to prevent elected officials from pressuring their subordinates (civil servants) for contributions," he noted. "Regardless of whether the law technically applied here, it is ludicrous even to consider prosecuting Gore for making calls from the West Wing that he could lawfully have made from the East Wing."
Levin had a similar response to Gore's other controversial fund-raising activities. "As for the Buddhist Temple allegations, the line between what's legal and what's illegal on the borderline between hard and soft money is murky," he said.
"The whole system has broken down, and that state of affairs should be addressed through structural reform, not by pillorying (or even worse, prosecuting) an individual for what was, at most, bad judgment in applying that distinction."
In fact, according to Levin, Gore's actions may not even have been technically unlawful. "The distinction Gore has drawn between a 'fundraiser' and a 'finance-related event' may sound empty to the lay mind, but he didn't create it -- it is part of the working code that many politicians have developed to implement an unsettled area of law. If you don't like that, fix the law -- don't prosecute Gore for doing something that is so hard to distinguish from conduct that the legal system surely tolerates."
Levin sees the prospects for campaign finance reform at the federal level as improving in the next Congress. "The political forces driving it may become irresistible," he suggested. "I think that we might get legislation that falls far short of what the most strident critics are seeking, but that the congressional leadership thinks will dampen the pressure for a while."
And what might that incremental reform look like?
According to Levin, radical options -- such as complete public financing or unlimited contributions with full disclosure of the sources -- are nearly impossible, at least in the short run. "Major change in the campaign finance laws would require broad consensus, and opinions on each side are too entrenched to permit either of the polar solutions," he said.
"In any case, driving money out of politics is not feasible, because campaigning is expensive."
Levin's proposed solution? "What Congress might be able to do is rewrite the laws to make it possible to run a well-funded campaign under straightforward ground rules, so that elaborate evasions aren't really necessary," he said. "That means, for example, that if Congress wants to eliminate the distinction between hard and soft money, it should make it easier to raise hard money, such as by raising contribution limits."
Professor Levin, of Washington University is St. Louis, is an expert on administrative law and the law of the legislative process. He has done extensive research on congressional ethics and closely follows political reform developments in areas such as campaign finance and lobbying regulation. Chair of the American Bar Association's Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice, he also has chaired the Association of American Law Schools' sections on administrative law and legislation.
