The Pew Charitable Trusts has marked the season by announcing large grants to many of the leading reform organizations.  Its press release http://electionlawblog.org/archives/004635.html was noted on Rick Hasen’s election law blog but it is not likely to be noted elsewhere.  This funding is not news, not really: this sort of funding is expected, and the role of Pew and other such organizations in financing the reform movement never stirs much journalistic interest.  See here.  But since Pew went to the trouble of issuing a release, its announcement deserve a moment's notice.

       The release describes the Trust’s commitment to campaign finance reform as "a decade-long commitment to increasing public trust and confidence in U.S. elections," which involves also efforts to reduce "the impact of unregulated soft money in federal campaigns and increase public participation."   The "impact" of soft money, as it was experienced prior to the enactment of BCRA, was apparently one appearance: "when the Trusts began its investment in this area in 1996, Americans were concerned about the health and legitimacy of the U.S. democratic process," troubled by "the question of whether these [soft money] contributions [solicited by elected officials] gave rise to the appearance of corruption in the legislative process."

       Pew suggests that progress has been made toward the fulfillment of these goals of enhancing the "health and legitimacy" of the political process.  The money it is distributing is meant to keep up this good fight, by assuring that the flow of political money is closely monitored and that the new laws are "effectively" implemented. 

       This may all seem appealing enough, but: what is the evidence that public trust in the political process has increased as a result of these reforms?  There is none, because it has not.  Confidence in the nation’s leadership is very low; Members of Congress, separated from soft money, rank well below all types of leaders. See here.  Public "participation" has not risen appreciably by any known or accepted measure.  There is no reason to believe that turnout levels rise or fall with the tides of campaign finance reform; and turnout, save for Presidential turnout in certain of the hotly contested states in 2004, remains weak in federal, state and local elections.

       There is very little to be said on behalf of any of Pew’s claims.  Yet these claims will continue to be made, because these are suitable public explanations, general in nature and, to all appearances, generous in spirit; and they are made in the name of the public, in its supposed interest.  Yet the community within which the money is awarded and spent is a small, very select one, with significant and influential relationships to the journalistic and academic communities, and it is rarely the subject of separate attention and study, as it should be.  And it should be the subject of some attention for no reason other than the obvious one:  it is generally accepted that money raised and spent to influence politics, even for the better, is a subject of broad public interest and concern, and this is no exception.  Yet it is unlikely that there will be much, if any, reference to this Pew Release in the daily, mass- circulation press.

       Note below: those interested in this subject, and interested in the perfect Holiday gift, may have to wait a while, but it is soon to be available in stores.  See here.   

Bob Bauer