As campaign finance controls become intricate and surpass general understanding, their democratic character is tested.  Something is wrong with the argument that these reforms answer a demand from the “people” when the people do not understand them or the way that they have changed politics.  This is where the press has a role to play, and it has chosen one which it plays with brio:  it is the role of a steward of the public interest appointed to “follow the money” with a seasoned cynicism.  The law changes, growing more complex, but so much of the “coverage” remains the same, cranked out by well familiar, overworked formula.

     This weekend, John Samples, among the nation’s experts on campaign finance and author of the first-rate The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform (2006), grappled with the formula in an encounter with CNN’s In the Money.  Jack Cafferty wasted no time in offering his opinion, which was more appealing than asking a question, and this was his opinion:

Wouldn’t it be great if our political leaders were really good at what we elected them for?  Dream on.  You know, looking out for our interests in Washington.  Well, instead, what many of them are really good at is fundraising and reelection campaigns.

     He then took a pass at a statement of fact—that Republicans raise more money than Democrats by a factor of “four and five to one”—and Samples, replying gently that “its not quite that,” distinguished the performance of the national committees from the more evenly matched competition of the congressional campaign committees.  When another of the trio of telejournalists, Andy Serwer, ventured the view that money determines the winner every time, Samples slapped this down, too, prompting Serwer to retreat apologetically:  “Oops. Yes.”

     Then came the an exchange on the law, and the lights here did not shine more brightly, as Cafferty proposed a “theory of mine”--

[that] the game is fixed going in, that the big corporations and the lobbyists have bought the government, bought the races, bought      everything they need and that when you and I show up to vote, it doesn’t really matter all that much because it’s already been decided….

     This was merely a prelude, and what followed was this question: “shouldn’t we figure out a way to get the corporations out of the game.  Don’t they serve as a corrupting influence to this system that doesn’t work very well?”   Samples: “Well, under the laws now, corporations can’t give money to campaigns and labor unions can’t either.”  Serwer was skeptical, questioning whether corporations don’t manage to “get it [money] there somehow, through soft campaign contributions, as they’re called, soft dollars?”  Samples patiently explained the law, managing to introduce the point that any corporate influence, such as through PACs—and the influence of campaign contributions on policy more generally—is more modest than many suppose.

     The interview ended on note on which it began, with Cafferty reminding viewers that the people have “this suspicion that the whole thing reeks.  And my sense is the public is probably right.”

     The print media took its turn the following day, as the Washington Post published a piece on the political impact of blogging. The story, inspired by the Virginia Senate campaign, relates how some bloggers, paid to advise candidates, also continue to blog ferociously on their behalf.  This said to be “testing the federal laws.”  Michael D. Shear and Tim Craig, "Paid Bloggers Stoke Senate Battle in VA," Washington Post (Sept. 17, 2006) at A1.  Adam Bonin, an expert who has advised, among other clients, Daily Kos, posted to the election law listserv the observation that the reporters did not bother to consult, certainly not to cite, any authority on campaign laws.  The article did succeed in putting in some dark question the FEC’s internet regulations, found suspiciously to “give bloggers…virtually unlimited freedom.”  Such is the power of the formula:  there is always the danger, somewhere, of unlimited freedom, which in the journalistic mindset of the day is a loophole.

     In the meantime, there is some help on the way, for anyone outside the circle of experts who might be looking for it.  The Center for Democracy and Technology has unveiled a new website constructed to guide bloggers, and others interested in Internet politics, in the requirements of the law.  As the law comes to ever more tax understanding, enterprises like this, easing the grip of uninformed, formula journalism, are most welcome and distressingly necessary.

Bob Bauer