Too Much Money

IN THE 1986 Senate elections, the Democratic Party is the clear winner, with a gain of eight seats. Ronald Reagan, a lame duck without any control over Congress, is a big loser.

The biggest loss, however, is to democracy. The high-cost and questionable financing required for media-age elections and the increased use of negative advertising and independent PAC expenditures has seriously undermined the fairness of our electoral process.

Ronald Reagan, in an uncharacteristic display of stamina, was hard at work. In a last ditch effort to save the Republican Senate, the President visited 17 states, campaigning for his friends in the Senate class of '80, the Reagan coattail riders.

Flanked by fireworks, skydivers and cannon-fired confetti, Reagan spoke at a California election eve rally, saying, "I always thought being an American meant never being mean or small..."

MEANWHILE, ACROSS THE country in over 15 hotly contested Senate races, Republicans and Democrats alike were being mean, petty and extremely effective through the use of negative advertising.

The increased use of negative ads was buoyed by the large increases in the amount of money spent on campaigns. With money left over after the requisite campaign costs, candidates have found negative advertising to be the most effective use of surplus funds.

Of course, 1986 wasn't the first year of the negative ad. But it was the year that saw the medium reach new nadirs. In Wisconsin incumbent Bob Kasten suggested that his opponent Ed Garvey, former president of the National Football League Players Association, had misused over $750,000 in association funds. Kasten admitted that the ads implied things about Garvey which were untrue, yet he let the ads run.

Garvey struck back with ads about Kasten's arrest in Washington, D.C., for drunk driving--while the Senate was in session debating farm policy.

When it came to negative advertising this year, the only real difference between the two parties was their ability to use it. In overall campaign expenditures, the Republicans outspent the Democrats five to one. The Republican party had raised enough money to give $76.3 million to its Senatorial candidates. The Democrats were only able to spare $9.9 million.

The money buys negative ads; it pays for extensive polling so that candidates can mold their image to the voters' archetype; and it indebts the candidates to their donors.

Large amounts of campaign money hurt democracy, by allowing candidates to control the way voters see them. Kasten, who had over three times as much money as Garvey, was able to turn down the offer of a 90 minute debate on prime time Milwaukee TV. Candidates don't have to worry about being covered on the TV news; they just buy TV time when they want exposure.

THE HUGE IMBALANCE between Democrat and Republican campaign budgets is caused by the type of organizations that form Political Action Committees (PACs), which can donate up to $5000 per candidate. One third of all PACs represent corporations; a quarter represent ideological groups, mostly on the conservative end of the spectrum.

The Democrats, now in control of the Senate, have a historical chance to put fairness over finances in federal elections. They can provide federal funding for Senate races through a voluntary income tax contribution.

The specifics of such a sweeping reform would have to be ironed out so as to not give an unfair advantage to incumbents, whose increased exposure usually requires less campaigning and expensive advertising. Other reforms that the new Senate can work on include lowering the maximum PAC contribution to candidates, placing greater restrictions on how PACs can independently spend money in support of a given candidate, and urging television stations to provide more free debate time to candidates.

FORTUNATELY, well-financed campaigns did not carry the day this time. Of the nine Republican freshmen Senators, only Alphonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.), Bob Kasten (R-Wisc.) and Steve Symms (R-Idaho) kept their seats.

That the brat pack of '80 is now out of office is a tribute to an electorate that was willing to look past flashy well-financed campaigns and to consider instead the importance of keeping a Democratic check on a popular and demagogic President.

But upset victories such as this year's will not happen again. Many of the victorious Democrats are former governors and other elected officials who gained office during an era when campaigns required less reliance on money and the PACs that provide it. They won election through exposure gained in previous political experiences, and thus were able to overcome huge funding gaps.

Unless the Democrats work to reform campaign financing soon, they will have even more difficulty gaining statewide and senatorial offices in the future. 1986 was a Democratic victory. Now it's time for a democratic victory over the corrupting influence of money on politics.