On campaign finance, leave well enough alone

THERE is an obvious conflict between freespeech rights and politicians’ desire to micromanage their opponents’ campaign spending and donations, and past “reforms” have made campaigns more expensive with less accountability. There’s no reason to think a new federal package will generate better results.

House Democrats recently filed their “For the People Act,” a bill that includes provisions regarding numerous issues, including voter registration and campaign finance. To cite one example, Democrats want to ban campaign contributions from businesses with significant foreign influence.

How “foreign influence” is defined will be key. It’s worth noting Apple’s stock recently plummeted when officials said trade disputes had impacted iPhone sales in China. That suggests the company is much influenced by forces outside this country. Will proponents vote to impede Apple’s political activity? And if so, what of direct contributions by Apple employees? In the 2016 presidential race, Tim Cook, chief executive officer of Apple, reportedly donated $236,100 to the Hillary Victory Fund, and Clinton received a total of $1.8 million from Apple’s workforce.

House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., cited the National Rifle Association as an example of undue influence. It’s true the NRA donates to candidates and makes independent expenditures, yet that spending is still just a drop in the bucket. The NRA’s clout, as many lawmakers openly concede, is not that it spends money, but that it can mobilize its members to vote. That isn’t the case for many other freespending groups or individuals.

In 2018, businessman Tom Steyer dropped $50 million into Democratic efforts, and says he is pleased with the results. But in 2014, when Steyer spent $74 million, more often than not his favored candidates lost. That year, Steyer backed candidates in four Senate and three gubernatorial contests. Only three won.

Similarly, in the 2018 elections, USA Today reported there were at least 41 House candidates who lost despite outspending their opponents.

One suspects Democrats will find a way to make sure “their” donors, such as Apple employees, are exempted from onerous new regulations while comparable entities elsewhere are declared “nefarious.” Such actions don’t produce good government or end corruption.

From a 20,000-foot view, it’s evident complaints about the undue influence of money in politics are overblown and that past “reforms” have made things worse. When the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 limited private contributions to political parties, it shifted donations and greater influence to ideological interest groups and wealthy citizens, which most officials now concede resulted in more extreme rhetoric, polarization and gridlock.

Now House Democrats are, in effect, vowing to reform the problems created by similar reforms, which in turn will lead to efforts to fix the problems created by the reform to the reform. Here’s a better approach: Leave well enough alone. While we generally favor transparency in reporting of candidate contributions, efforts to stymie citizens’ free-speech activities are not only unnecessary, but too often counterproductive.