Unintended But Predicted Events –

Unintended But Predicted Events – Surprise! “New Ways To Harness Soft Money in Works: Political Groups Poised to Take Huge Donations,” the Washington Post reported on the Sunday front page.

Some of the biggest names in Republican and Democratic circles are establishing new groups to collect and spend the unlimited political donations that are supposed to be curbed by the recent campaign finance law.

So, both senior Democrat and Republican operatives are working feverishly to evade the soft money limitations of campaign finance reform by creating new private organizations to collect and spend the money that used to go the parties. Who’d a thunk it! Next they’ll be discovering gambling at Rick’s and pool right here in River City!

The only thing that’s surprising about this is … that anyone is surprised.

But supporters of the McCain-Feingold measure fear that these efforts might undermine the purpose of the law by creating new conduits for soft money that require less public disclosure than was required before the legislation was enacted. They contend that these activities are purposeful evasions of the law, encouraged by the weak enforcement regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission.

Well, all one can say is “Duh!” That’s precisely what critics of McCain-Feingold predicted would happen.

Senator Mitch McConnell (R, Ky), leader of the opposition to McCain-Feingold, in 1997:

[McConnell] said it would be impossible to keep corporations — whose direct contributions were first outlawed in 1907 — from playing a political role.: “They are going to speak,” Mr. McConnell said. “Now they will go out and speak independently. They will speak by contributing soft money to parties. They will speak by individuals’ donating, and political action committees’ connected to the companies donating. They are going to speak. And I think any kind of effort to adjust this needs to keep in mind that spending restrictions are like putting a rock on Jell-O. The speech will go somewhere.” — New York Times, 4/13/1997

Jan Baran, Republican election lawyer, repeating his earlier warnings:

“What this law does is create new miniature political parties while stamping out soft money for the national parties,” said Jan Baran, a Republican lawyer. Lawmakers have “enhanced the relative role of large, private, usually corporate-funded national organizations, many of which operate with no disclosure requirements.”

Baran said that as the parties decline, such groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the National Rifle Association and Planned Parenthood will rise in importance. “It’s a major redistribution and dislocation of political power,” he said. — Washington Post, 6/23/2002

All those who predicted this eminently predictable development were not Republican critics of the legislation.

On the other side of the ideological aisle, Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, said soft-money donors seeking to “elect people who embody their values will be looking to groups like NARAL, which do serious political work and are seasoned operatives, to invest in. If they [donors] can’t give to the parties . . . they are going to find other means.” — Washington Post, 6/23/2002

Indeed, this particular nail was hit squarely on the head back in 1997 by none other than the former executive editor of the New York Times, Max Frankel:

When candidates are limited in the amounts they can collect or spend individually, they channel gifts and expenses through national parties or campaign committees. If faced with limits on those national committees, they will turn to state and local groups. Restrict the local groups and the candidates will turn to committees that purport to promote not them, only issues. And if you could somehow cage even those issue groups during election season, they would flourish in pre-election years.

These are not mere speculations; I speak from facts routinely, though not conspicuously, reported in The Times…. — New York Times, 4/2/1997

Republican critics of McCain-Feingold warned that it would not succeed in curbing political money; it would only drive it farther underground and out of sight. It is thus certainly not surprising that they are now working to fulfill their own prophecy. But, as Sunday’s Post article makes abundantly clear, the Democrats — who rejected these criticisms and supported McCain-Feingold — are working just as feverishly to do exactly what the Republicans are doing.

I don’t like to be harsh, and I firmly believe that invective is counter-productive (not to mention impolite), but I find it hard to view Democratic support for McCain-Feingold, given their current efforts to circumvent it, as anything other than either disingenuous or dumb. What am I missing?