The crusade for campaign “reform” captures a defining delusion of our time. It is that our democracy is besieged by some sinister cabal whose destruction would restore confidence in government. The nature of the cabal is constantly shifting. Sometimes, it’s “big interests” and “big money.” At other times, it’s “career politicians” or arrogant “elites.” But someone is messing with the system and must be obliterated. Campaign-financing “reform,” term limits and a constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget are among the favored strategies to eradicate offending cabals.
Our infatuation with these imagined cabals obscures the real and less sensational reason that our politics are so inconclusive and frustrating. It is, simply, that the questions that now dominate politics are ones on which Americans deeply disagree and, indeed, on which many individuals hold confused feelings. The conflicts over budget deficits, affirmative action, abortion and government regulation (to name a few issues) are genuine and difficult. To inveigh against our various cabals, including the alleged evil of money, exempts us for responsibility for our political impasses. Some large and distant three is to blame.
It is true that politicians’ pursuit of campaign money is often sleazy. And campaigns do cost more than ever. In a new study, political scientists Herbert E. Alexander of the University of Southern California and Anthony Corrado of Colby College estimate that the 1992 campaign cost $3.2 billion. That’s nearly triple the amount in 1980, $1.2 billion. (The figures cover all campaigns, but most spending involves national offices. In 1992 presidential candidates spent about $550 million and congressional candidates another $678 million. Political parties and organizations spent almost $1 billion on national races. The rest went for state and local races.)
But these raw dollar figures are less impressive than they seem. Although campaign spending is growing, so is almost everything else. Between 1980 and 1992, the U.S. gross domestic product more than doubled (unadjusted for inflation). More important, campaign spending is tiny: five or six one hundredths of 1 percent of GDP (table). This is up from three one hundredths of 1 percent in the 1960s. It hardly seems a high price for democracy.
Of course, it might be if campaign contributions were thoroughly corrupting. But they aren’t. It is not that campaign money has never influenced the granting of a tax break, regulatory privilege or dubious subsidy. To take one example: Archer Daniels Midland Co. and its chairman, Dwayne Andreas, are large contributors, and the company benefits from various farm programs, including subsidies for the conversion of grain into gasohol. Do campaign contributions help protect the subsidies? Probably. Did the contributions cause the subsidies? No. They exist because they enjoy strong support among farmers.
In short, campaign contributions matter a lot less than most people assume. The more important an issue, the less campaign money matters. Social Security, Medicare and other programs for the elderly constitute more than a third of all federal spending. They have regularly expanded not because their supporters make big campaign gifts but because these programs have huge constituencies and are highly popular. The military-industrial complex is supposedly a powerhouse of political influence. Yet, after the cold war, dozens of defense contracts were canceled.
Among the skeptics who doubt that money rules politics is political scientist Alexander, perhaps the pre-eminent authority on campaign spending. Constituents’ interests, political beliefs and party loyalties are the main influences on Congress, he says. As Alexander notes, much campaign money goes to people who already hold strong views. Moreover, the influence of any individual “special interest” is diluted, because many special interests contribute. Bankers know that it’s not easy to buy liberalized regulations because brokers, their adversaries, give too.
Alexander opposes campaign “reform” spending limits as unworkable and undemocratic. In theory, limits now apply to presidential campaigns, but they are evaded. In 1992, Alexander and Corrado estimate, spending for George Bush exceeded the limit by 37 percent, spending for Bill Clinton by 99 percent. In an era of mass communication, spending limits impair free speech. Someone has to pay for TV time and advertising. Political speech is not a pristine dialogue; it is a chaotic struggle for public opinion. The necessity of money would be troubling if it settled elections–if candidates could buy victory. They can’t. In 1994 eight of the 20 House candidates with the largest contributions lost.
The idea that campaign money fundamentally corrupts politics persists only because it is endlessly repeated by groups like Common Cause, mindlessly echoed by journalists and proclaimed by politicians themselves. This last act is highly cynical. Politicians pander to the public’s antipolitical mood by bewailing the corruption of politics and then innocently wonder why the public thinks ill of them. But the true damage of our cabal theory of politics is self-deception. Exaggerating the evil of campaign money diverts us from wrestling with the important issues that divide the nation.
The cost of political campaigns is a trivial share of national income (GDP).
CAMPAIGN AS PERCENT YEAR COST OF GDP 1968 $300 million .03% 1972 425 mil. .04 1976 540 mil. .03 1980 1.2 billion .04 1984 1.8 bil. .05 1988 2.7 bil. .06 1992 3.2 bil. .05
SOURCE: “FINANCING THE 1992 ELECTION,” ALEXANDER AND CORRADO; COMMERCE DEPARTMENT
