The Dirty Money Laundry Machine : Plugging up the loophole of party organizations

All politicans say--and many, no doubt, sincerely believe--that they have never allowed campaign contribution receipts to determine their decisions once they are in office. But no politician would dare deny that campaign money does buy something: It buys access. And he who has the incumbent’s ear has the best possible shot at the incumbent’s mind. Were it not so, Team 100--the 1988 fund-raising effort that located 249 $100,000 contributors for President Bush’s election campaign--would have located fewer such deep pockets.

Do they all do it? Yes, they all do it. And if the Democrats raise less money in absolute terms than the Republicans do, it certainly isn’t for want of trying. Earlier this year, the Democratic National Committee began a fund-raising drive that called for a $200,000 ante.

Note that name. It isn’t Paul Tsongas or Bill Clinton dropping in for an extra-friendly chat, it’s the Democratic National Committee--or the Republican National Committee. In order to qualify for federal matching money, candidates must accept an overall spending ceiling as well as a $1,000 cap on the amount that any individual may contribute. But there is no such cap on the amount that an individual may contribute to a party organization, and the party may then run its own campaign for the candidate.

Money that flows into a campaign this way is dirty money. It blatantly frustrates the intent of the law that our representatives--above all, our President--not be for sale to the highest bidder. There are legitimate purposes, of course, for a party organization in a campaign, but money laundering is not one.

In the long run, legislation banning money laundering is the only way to get rid of dirty money campaigns. Both the House and the Senate have passed campaign reform legislation. S 3, the Senate bill, has language explicitly banning money laundering. The entire political status quo might be called a lobby against S 3, but the popular will is clearly behind it or it wouldn’t have gone this far.

In the short run, however, the candidates need not wait for the law to force them to do the right thing. They can demonstrate their own integrity by “taking the pledge” that public interest group Common Cause has challenged them to take. They can pledge, in short, to refuse “soft money,” laundered contributions that break the spirit--if not, as yet, the letter--of federal campaign law. The five Democratic candidates have taken the pledge. The Republican candidates have not yet done so. We urge them to make common cause with Common Cause and their Democratic rivals. Republican as well as Democratic leaders should hasten, not postpone, the day when public office will be public service rather than contributor massage.

In short, the pledge now, and the law later. With a little luck, Senate-House conferencing will preserve the anti-laundering features of S 3. With a little more luck, President Bush will sign rather than veto the legislation. For the politicians as well as the people, that could be the beginning of a new era.