True campaign finance reform a tricky matter
Monday, December 4, 2006 7:36 AM PST
Printable version
E-mail this articleThe Public Disclosure Commission Thursday prescribed a tough campaign finance reform package to rein in the spending by third parties in state elections -- tougher, we suspect, than legislators and political action committees had anticipated.
The recommendations, which came a month after the commission signaled its intention to tighten election law and took testimony from interested organizations, would prohibit unions, corporations and associations from spending general treasury funds to influence elections or giving those funds directly to PACs that support or oppose a candidate. The five-member commission also recommended limiting the amount a PAC can receive annually from any source.
Those recommendations could face a steep hill in the Legislature. Rep. Kathy Haigh, D-Shelton, who chairs the House State Government, Operations & Accountability Committee, suggested as much Thursday. "The other side of the coin," she said in reference to the proposed spending limits, "is obviously the freedom of speech and the freedom of how to spend your money and where you spend your money."
Indeed, courts have made this connection between political speech and money with regard to independent expenditures. Any attempt to limit those expenditures has to be carefully crafted so as not to trip over the Constitution. Rep. Haigh believes the commission will find broader support for its recommended improvements in disclosure -- a request for money to speed up the PDC Web site and make it easier to access campaign finance information and a proposal to accelerate the reporting time frame for pre-election finance reports.
We hope Haigh is right about the prospects for these disclosure recommendations. The most effective election law reforms generally are aimed at making the process more transparent. It is significant to note that the spike in third-party spending in judicial races last summer and fall which prompted the PDC's recommended reforms had little effect on the outcome of the targeted contests. The three challengers backed by the big money lost. Voters knew these challengers were benefiting from big money and knew what special interest was providing the money. That information apparently counted for more than the challengers' money advantage.
If the PDC accomplishes nothing other than creating greater transparency in campaign giving and spending, it will have accomplished quite a lot.
Past Month's Most Commented Stories