Campaign finance in US elections

The 1996 elections, in which President Clinton won a resounding victory, remain in memory as controversial for the dubious ways adopted by the Democratic Party to acquire campaign contribution. One can remember sleepovers in the Lincoln bed room of the White House in exchange of contribution to the Clinton campaign etc. Other infractions include accepting money form foreign national, using government property to raise campaign money, Using subterfuge to mask some contributions, policy decisions instituted to curry favour from political donators, and casually contravening rules governing campaign fund raising activities.

The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) 1971, laid emphasis on disclosure of accounts, source of campaign fund, ceiling on the media expenditure as well as usage of personal money for official campaign. The shady dealings of the Watergate scandal forced Congress to ratify the Act in 1974. The prorogue order on using money form public and union exchequers was kept in place. Candidates were proscribed from using too much personal fund. However, they were allowed to get federal funding matching their own fund as long as they agreed not to accept private campaign donations. However, this extraordinary zeal against profligate spending in elections could take place, the supreme court (Bucley vs. Valo) declared that corruption or the appearance of corruption could justify campaign fund being regulated but the government does not have the right to put a ceiling on individual expenditure.

All of the above had portents of a coming flood of activities by the political type "operators", who know that the need for money is there and the urge to win election would create a demand for new source of fund. The absence of any clear and compact campaign finance law leads to a proliferation of " lobbyists" and middlemen types, elements who would arrange finance form corporate and other sources by promising support for issues advocated by the donors. No laws were broken but the appearance of advocacy based campaign donations brought more and more money in the election race. Congressional elections were the breeding ground of the political advocacy type groups known as PAC (Political Action Committees) the number of such entities is growing enormously.

The two party system, where the Republicans and the Democrats vie for political power, is perhaps a contributing factor in this proliferation of interest based lobbying and the donation of large funds to political coffers. The two parties find themselves in the awkward position of either dominating the Senate or holding the executive power. The result is inertia, as each wants the other to initiate meaningful campaign reform. The issue seems to have been consigned to the backburner in this election. The Americans may have to wait till the next election campaign or the next big scandal to see progress in campaign finance law. In a country where the law courts and the Federal Reserve Bank are independent, perhaps a new independent body with a high profile appointment as head of the commission would be a first beg step.

Ershad Khandker is a freelance journalist.