Last Tuesday Republican senators twice defeated bills seeking to curb the role money plays in our national elections.

At issue is whether the increasing flow of money into the national election cycle really amounts to good government, or if it is nothing more than legalized bribery.

Many Republicans voiced the belief that a soft money ban amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech. “It’s a horrible piece of legislation,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “It deserves to be defeated and the Senate did the country a favor.”

Chief architect of the bill, Republican John McCain, voiced his view.

“It appears we were mistaken. The opponents of comprehensive reform oppose even the most elemental reform, and those opponents abide on sides of the aisle.”

The odd thing is that the two failed votes came a day after the Senate cast a roll call vote on the issue of banning soft money.

Since it was non-binding and only amounted to political posturing for the American people, it passed easily with a 92-1 margin.

But when push came to shove and the threat to political contributions became very real, soft money pushed back.

Both bills went down entirely along party lines, with a few brave Republican souls daring to cross the line and vote Democratic. As for the delegation sent by the great state of Iowa, Harkin voted yea while Grassley voted nay.

Perhaps Grassley truly believes that money constitutes freedom of speech, but on this issue he failed the residents of Iowa in a grand manner.

The simple fact is that groups donate millions to our Congressmen every year.

Do our elected representatives ignore money and vote according to principle? Or do they weigh every issue according to the biggest briefcase full of money? We will never know.

But the public perception is that Congress looks out only for themselves and are in the pocket of well-moneyed special interest groups.

McCain stopped short of accusing anyone of bribery, but acknowledged on the Senate floor that “we are all tainted by a system that the public believes results in greater representation to moneyed interests than to average citizens.”

The issue of money buying votes is not new. In 1979 Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Ma, said “We have the best money Congress can buy. Congress is awash in contributions from special interests that expect something in return (US News & World Report, Jan 29, 1979).”

At that time financial contributions were somewhat low, as was the cost of running for office.

In 1976, the total spent on all elections nationwide was $540 million. In 1996, that figure had climbed to over $4 billion (Keefe, 1998).

The rise in donations and expenditures came about as a result of the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 that rewrote the books and included some legal maneuvering space for Political Action Committees.

The issue of limiting campaign spending came to a head in 1976 when the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley vs. Valeo that limiting campaign spending constituted a breech of the First Amendment (Keefe, 1998).

Since that time there has been little progress on the matter of campaign spending, precisely because the special interest groups squash any opposition.

This was the fourth straight year McCain tried passing the issue only to have it defeated, and the twentieth time the issue had been raised by Congress since 1986.

In the past four years Republican opposition has defeated the bill, although McCain laid the blame at the feet of both parties.

Considering the continual debate on the issue of soft money, it appears the issue will never go away until some comprehensive legislation is passed that finally puts the issue to rest.

Based on the overwhelming distrust America has for Congress and the perceived corruption, it would be best for Congress to distance itself from any issue that could further erode the public’s confidence in that legislative institution.

But campaign finance will not go away, so it is in the best interest of Congress to solve the issue now before the public becomes really fed up and votes everybody out of office.

The bill on campaign finance reform was an attempt to permanently resolve the matter and bring back public support for government institutions.

By voting down the bill, Republicans have demonstrated that the interests of soft money are worth more than the voice of the voters.

They know that people feel strongly about the issue of soft money buying interest, but they don’t seem to care.

Senator McConnell was nonchalant about the possibility of political penalty, saying “I do not believe that this is the kind of an issue that is going to determine the outcome of elections (CNN, Oct. 20).”

That type of callous attitude should be reason enough to vote the man out of office, although the response by Kentucky voters has yet to be seen.

The truth is that issues come and go, but public trust in Congress has been on the wane since before Watergate.

The legislation that was defeated would have tried to remove the taint of corruption, and the Senate couldn’t even pass that measure.

When an institution such as that doesn’t even care how the public perceives it, you have a serious problem on your hands.

As voters, we should be outraged at the affront to our integrity. Every person who voted down the bill should not be re-elected, because we both know that when push came to shove, your views didn’t matter as much as someone with a large bank account.

Senators may need your vote to get elected, but after that they don’t care for your considerations until the next election cycle rolls around.

But next time, do the right thing and vote them out of office.

---

Aaron Woell is a senior in political science from Bolingbrook, Ill.