Our friend Jonathan Rauch of The Atlantic believes he’s found a way to solve the problems inherent in the campaign finance system: he calls it “trade[ing] hostages.”
First, pass legislation requiring more disclosure. Democrats have proposed just that, in a law they call, creatively, the disclose Act. Second, pass a law raising today’s overly restrictive caps on direct donations to candidates and parties. Allow contributions of up to, say, $100,000 in congressional races and $1 million in presidential races—enough to make fund-raising much easier for candidates. For years, Republicans have wanted to raise contribution limits.
It’s an interesting idea. Give the Democrats what they seek regarding enhanced disclosure of donors as a trade for what Republicans want, looser restrictions on caps to contributions. Rauch contends that both ideas have merit.
Stringent contribution limits do nothing but push money into political back channels, and secrecy does nothing but reduce the information in the political marketplace. Predictably, however, Democrats block the Republican idea because they think contributions corrupt candidates, and Republicans block the Democratic idea because they think disclosure invades privacy.
While we agree that contribution limits do indeed push money toward groups Super PACs that can spend unlimited sums to support federal candidates, Rauch errs when he suggests that Super PACs do not disclose their donors. Of course, they do. Nor does he appear to be aware of what has actually been required by the DISCLOSE Act, rather simply repeating the line that it is just about more disclosure. Similarly, he does not seem to have analyzed the extent of the alleged problem with “hiding big money donors” – approximately 5 percent of all political spending in 2012 came from organizations that do not disclose their donors, and many of those groups, such as Chamber of Commerce and Planned Parenthood, are well known to the general public. Nor does he appear to recognize the constitutional constraints on mandating disclosure, set out in Buckley v. Valeo, that limit compulsory disclosure of members and donors to organizations who have a primary purpose of affecting elections.
A deal it might be, but there is little to suggest that revealing information about donors is a fair trade. The pushback against disclosure as an invasion of privacy is not abstract – it is based on proven concerns about how that information will be used. Will donors be intimidated into not giving to a preferred PAC or candidate? Will lists be kept of individuals’ personal information indicating which candidates and which issues they’ve donated to? And if so, what will those lists be used for? Will corporations that have contributed to PACs be boycotted for their political preferences?
The attempt at a bi-partisan solution is a noble one. But Democrats will need to bring something else besides the DISCLOSE Act to the negotiating table.
