July 8, 2004

 

CAMPAIGN FINANCE – ONLY THE FACTS, PLEASE

 

By Edward Gorham

President

Maine AFL-CIO

 

Generally speaking, in public discourse, one should avoid personal criticism and limit the discussion to the issues at hand. However, an exception may be the recent (BDN July 7) column by Linda Chavez giving her claims about unions “routinely breaking” campaign finance laws, “lying” on union tax returns, and making “illegal use” of union dues.

            First, Linda Chavez should not be confused with Linda Chavez Thompson. The latter is Executive Vice President of the national AFL-CIO – a woman who rose from being an agricultural laborer to become the first person of color and the first woman to be elected to her present office.

Conservative "Darling"

            The other Linda Chavez is (according to NBC News) “a darling of the conservatives” who was nominated by President Bush to be U.S. Secretary of Labor in 2001.  She withdrew when it was revealed she was personally and knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. She is on record as opposing both the minimum wage and affirmative action. She has also, in a previous newspaper column three times called Senator John Kerry a “communist apologist” and in a rabid anti-union fund raising letter called AFL-CIO President John Sweeney “an avowed Socialist.”

            Campaign finance has been an important issue for decades and, despite recent legislation, remains a problem of national importance today. However, the Chavez column provides few facts and sheds little, if any, light on the problem.

Zero Information

            Chavez “estimates” total union campaign spending at more than a half billion dollars but provides zero information about who made the estimate and when it was made. She states that unions “routinely break the law” but bases the attack entirely on her limited, personal union experience of 25 years ago. She says no one monitors whether or not unions are illegally and directly involved in the campaigns of specific candidates. However, in Maine at least, this type of activity is closely restricted and routinely monitored by a state commission. She details violations of campaign finance law but again the details relate entirely to personal experiences of 25 years ago.

            If Linda Chavez wants to make her points why not use the well researched and factual material on campaign finance, donations and spending readily and abundantly available on the Internet instead of personal experience that is impossible to verify?

            When it comes to the issue of campaign finance it is probably true that almost no one is happy with the current situation, despite the recent legislation.

 

Will Spend $3 Billion

            It is startling, for instance, to read that, in the United States this election year, presidential and congressional campaigns are expected to spend “well over” $3 BILLION dollars in their efforts to win. Contrast this with Canada where in 2000 the political parties and the candidates spent a total of only $72 MILLION on campaigns.

            The basic reason for the huge difference is that Canada limits candidates spending and the United States, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, attempts to limit and restrict political donations but puts no limit on candidate spending unless the candidate accepts federal campaign funding. Obviously, controlling donations is much more difficult and complex than monitoring and controlling spending – and far less successful.

Business Spends More

            Chavez would have us believe that unions are constantly flooding the political campaigns with a tidal wave of money. The fact is that the political playing field is awash with money from corporations and the very rich. In the 2002 off year elections, for instance, big business outspent working family advocates $709 million to $62 million. This huge 12-to-1 disparity is detailed in the most current information from the Federal Election Commission – facts that Chavez conveniently ignores.
            The Center for Responsive Politics reports that business out spent unions 15-to-1 in cash and 17-to-1 in “soft money” contributions in the 2000 presidential year.

More Union Voters

            Unions have fought this rising tide of business political donations with a strong member based effort to increase voter registration, educate union members and get out the vote. This effort has worked. These new voters in union households represented 26 percent of the total vote in 2000 – an increase up from 19 percent in 1992.

            Both unions and corporations have a legal right to reach out politically to voters as long as the voters are, in the case of unions their members, and, in the case of corporations, their stockholders. However, it would appear that corporations appear to use a fire hose of money on elections and unions, with their limited financial resources, prefer using members to directly contact other members and provide election materials.

Hard and Soft Money
            There are problems not only with the limits on donations but also with the definition of what constitutes “hard money” and “soft money.” There is also a debate currently raging about the so-called 527 organizations where Republicans are frightened by the fact that pro-Democratic 527 organizations have (as of June) raised $106 million compared with only $33 million raised by pro-Republican groups in this election cycle.

            However, this Democratic advantage disappears when these figures are added to the amounts raised by the national party committees and the presidential campaigns. Then the Republicans pull far ahead with $557 million to the Democrats $393 million raised so far.

Corporate "Bundling"
            Much more could be said about the campaign finance issue including corporate “bundling” (assembling a number of small donations into one big donation) of money to gain political influence which the New York Times called a way for corporations and industry to “easily evade limits on campaign contributions.” However, such discussion and analysis should be aimed at understanding the dimensions and character of the problem and attempting to resolve it – not at unsubstantiated attacks, such as the Chavez column, that are based, not on fact, but on personal opinion and prejudice.