Wellstone Leads Opposition to Hard Money Limit Increases
WASHINGTON - 03.27.01 | Following the successful passage of his amendment last night to close a major loophole in McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation dealing with sham issue ads, U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN) announced at a press conference today that he will oppose efforts now underway in the Senate to increase hard money campaign contribution limits. Wellstone was joined in his opposition by heads of pro-reform advocacy groups including the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, US PIRG, Public Campaign, the Fannie Lou Hamer Project, and Network, a Catholic social justice organization.
Only a tiny portion of the electorate bumps up against the current hard money limit, so why would we want to increase that limit in the name of reform? Only a spectacularly small portion of U.S. citizens contribute more than $200 to political campaigns. Reform means getting the big money out of politics, and getting the people back in, Wellstone said.
Wellstone pointed out that small contributions are already drowned out by big money. During the 2000 elections, 47% of total individual contributions raised came from donors who gave at least $1000. According to a study conducted by Public Citizen, if the hard money contribution limits were increased to $3000 from $1000, the percentage of funds that would come from donors giving the maximum would rise to 64%. Increasing the limits would significantly dilute - even more than they already are - the contributions of small donors. Indeed candidates would increasingly focus their attention on big donors, magnifying people's perceptions that money equals access. At the same time, small donors would have less incentive to contribute. One quarter of one percent of Americans (.25%) made a contribution greater than $200 during the 1996 cycle. 232,000 individuals gave $1000 or more to federal candidates in the 2000 cycle or only 0.11% (one ninth of one percent) of the voting age population. 1,128 donors gave the annual aggregate maximum of $25,000 to individuals, parties, and PACs in at least one either 1999 or 2000.
Big contributors are not representative of America as a whole. The picture of those who "max out" to candidates under the current limit does not look like America, but is overwhelmingly white, male, and wealthy. A study conducted of donors in the 96 election found the following characteristics of such donors: 95% were white, 80% were male, 50% were over 60 years of age and 81% had annual incomes of over $100,000. If the hard money contribution limits are increased, that picture is likely to become even more skewed.
Fund raising records are already being broken under current limits. Current hard money contribution limits have not stopped candidates from raising record sums of money: $1.6 billion was raised by federal candidates during the 2000 elections $327 more than in the last presidential race in 1996.
Increasing hard money limits will not mean less time spent fund raising; it will only fuel the arms race. If colleagues think that raising the hard money contribution limits will allow them to spend less time fund raising, they are fooling themselves. Raising the limits simply will allow everyone to raise more money, and spend more money - and they will. The status quo will continue except with candidates chasing even more dollars. All of you know that you will make the same phone calls as before, to the same people, except now you will ask for $3000 instead of $1000. Your opponents will be doing the same thing. Raising the hard money contribution limits does nothing to change the current election system - it just raises the volume: more ads, more expensive consultants, more polls, and more disenchantment for the ordinary voter, Wellstone said.
Previously, the House of Representatives rejected hard money increases. During the debate over the Shays-Meehan bill in 1999, it rejected an increase in the hard money contribution limits. And now, in the context of reform, the Senate is poised to deliver a rebuke to the House by increasing the hard money contribution limits.
Americans will not see this as reform. We can't pretend to call raising the hard money contribution limits reform, and the American people won't believe that itís reform. When the headlines across the country read, Senate votes to allow more money into politics, will the American people believe this is a reform bill? Wellstone asked.
Print This Story
E-mail This Story
