A LOOK AT . . . Campaign Finance Reform; The Candidates Spell It Out
The rise of soft money has been the most disturbing trend in campaign finance in the 1990s. The idea that groups and individuals can inject unlimited, unregulated amounts of money (allegedly for "party building") into campaigns for federal office has made a mockery of the post-Watergate reforms enacted in 1974. The fatal flaw of the 1974 law is the capping of individual contributions at $1,000 per person--never adjusted or indexed for inflation. This has made Senate and House incumbents very difficult to beat, and has meant that non-incumbent candidates not personally wealthy or closely connected to the party establishment are finding it increasingly difficult to mount serious campaigns.</br></br>I believe soft money, whether by corporations, unions, interest groups or individuals, should be prohibited. But to make such a ban work, reformers must accept the simple fact that if we want competitive elections, the ability of candidates to raise large amounts of money from individuals and from fully regulated political action committees is a good thing, not a bad thing. The limit on individual contributions should be raised to $5,000 and indexed against future inflation. The limit on contributions by political action committees should be raised from $5,000 to $10,000 and indexed. I do not favor putting restrictions on "issue ads." The American people should have the right to express their opinions under the First Amendment. But encouraging people and groups who care about issues to advance their beliefs by supporting candidates they agree with will go nowhere until campaign contributions can once again be large enough to make a difference in our elections.</br></br>I am running for president because I want an American democracy that invests in the future of its children by lifting them out of poverty and offering every child--every child--a decent education. I want more Americans to have good health care. I want to heal the racial divide that short-circuits our national potential. I want to be the good steward of a good economy in which working Americans of all incomes can become financially secure.</br></br>But I know to achieve any of these things, we need a healthy democratic process. A process in which everyone's voice can be heard, where dissent is respected and candidates run on the strength of their ideas--not the weight of their wallets.</br></br>That is why I advocate comprehensive campaign finance reform, to make our democracy work for people again. In July, I laid out my proposals, which include: * Public financing of congressional general elections, with federal funding on a matching basis for small contributions in the primary and overall spending limits.