Possible Solutions and Analysis
While some think that PACs and the system that protects their existence are to blame, others think that the simple conflict of human nature’s mistrust of money is the problem. Searching for the root of the problem can surely aid us in our hunt for a solution.
Before we address the issues of reform, we must keep a question in mind. Is it possible to provide legislation to plug all the loopholes? (such as issue advertising and soft money (which we will discuss later) And even if watertight legislation were passed, would it stand up to the strict scrutiny applied by the Supreme Court on the recurring issue of the First Amendment?
There are two main groupings of ideas on this topic. Interestingly, many issues they raise echo the many opinions presented by the Supreme Court in its treatment of this issue. Ideas contradict each other as well as the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. In one camp, it is argued that reform is the answer, we just have not enacted powerful enough regulations yet. In the other camp reside those who argue that because of the First Amendment, people will always find ways of subverting well-intended legislation and inevitably render it impotent. In the words of Michael Malbin, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute: "Unless you repeal the First Amendment, people with private interests in legislation will be active." Unfortunately, if the latter is true, that leaves us with few alternatives for correcting this seemingly intractable situation.
Senator Jim Leach advocates prohibiting group giving of any kind and would make all contributions individual. He disagrees with the notion that PACs get more people involved and gives more people a voice. As V.O. Key, Jr.states, "to a considerable degree the work of the spokesmen of private groups, both large and small, proceeds without extensive involvement of either the membership or the wider public." (Woll, 233) Instead, Senator Leach believes that not having PACs forces candidates to go directly to the people to communicate, and get money and support. And then, of course, candidates would not be beholden to any powerful interest groups that finance them.
Walter Isaacson has written about the negative affects of the rise of PACs. He states a seemingly obvious fact to support the assumption that PACs are having a substantial impact on races and legislation. When PACs spend money, it is for the same pragmatic reasons that any of us do- expecting something for it. Assuming this, we can further say that PACs would not spend the money if they did not have a reasonable expectation that it would reap them benefits. The rise in PAC donations only reinforces this.
He continues with a discussion of one of the fore-mentioned loopholes created by the "free speech" argument. This is the impact of Issue Advertising.
Click on the link above to view full text with more graphs illustrating the rise in issue ads and the erosion of the already thin line separating donations in cooperation with a campaign from those simply communicating one’s own views about an issue or race. These ads advocating candidates have gone more and more in the direction of unabashedly naming candidates it supports while disparaging opponents with growing negativity. There is no regulation on money not authorized by a campaign and consequently interest groups can spend as much advocating specific people as they want. And since they are not formally recognized by the campaign, their dirty tactics are not checked by the fear of reflecting poorly on the campaign they are supporting.
Isaacson also proposes several solutions to these ills of our system and says that a mixture of them just might effect the change we are looking for. The first of these is public financing. The thought is that the same ideas behind public financing of presidential elections apply at the congressional level also. Some problems with this are the discrepancy in the costs of campaigning in the different states and the fact that since congressmen themselves would draft the legislation, each would want to protect a funding scheme beneficial to his situation. Not to mention the question of funding this!
The second suggestion is to raise the $1,000 individual limit so people can have greater impact relative to the PACs. This limit has never been raised since 1974 to adjust for inflation.
Finally, he suggests setting a limit on the amount House candidates can raise from PACs. Since House candidates have constituencies of the same size and because this does not suggests a cap on the amount spent on the entire campaign, it seems like it may have a chance. With any suggestion regarding limits, however, the issue can be expected to be fought out in the Supreme Court.
Interestingly, he mentions that the problem lies in persuading congressmen to adopt reforms because they benefit from the present system. However, the former congressmen quoted above are a few of many who feel very constrained by the current system which seems to force them into the situation of pandering to special interests in the interest of surviving to see another term at work! The system just seems to facilitate and even promote corruption as the allegiance of representatives shifts from their voting constituents to their financial supporters.