New Campaign Financing Law "gutted" You Can Still Buy Your Way Into National Office

The scene is Miami Beach in August, 1968, the eve of the Republican National Convention.

At a beach at 72nd and Collins, volunteers for Nelson Rockefeller are passing out free hot dogs and Cokes to hordes of sun burned tourists. When the candidate and the television crews arrive, the crowd is large and excited.

A few strain to touch feller and rip a souvenir from his clothing. But most seem content to glance at Rocky over their shoulder as they push toward the mustard dispensers.

Rockefeller's beach parties, while hardly on the scale of the legendary Tammany Hall food give-aways, were part of a last-ditch campaign that he and his family funded with an estimated $4.1 million from their personal change purses.

The strategy could hardly have been simpler: For the price of a few thousand hot dogs and drinks, Rocky found he could buy frenzied crowds all over town to serve as backdrops for the television news coverage of his campaign.

That campaign was soon dwarfed by Richard Nixon's $70 million 1972 blitz - buoyed by $1,000-a-plate steak dinners - that financed such innovative campaign strategies as the Watergate burglary and cover-up.

While many Democratic members of Congress had long expressed repugnance over the situation in which some top elective offices were going to the highest bidder (perhaps because they had more trouble than Republicans in finding wealthy supporters), reform legislation was finally pushed through the Watergate shocked Congress in 1974.

As ambiguous and compromising as the law was (Ted Kennedy called it "half a loaf"), it would have stopped a handful of fat-cats or wealthy office-seekers from floating an entire campaign. It also would have prevented Presidential candidates from spending the amount of money needed to launch a mass brain-washing of the public, via the media.

But in early February, much of that legislation was held to be unconstitutional by the conservative U.S. Supreme Court.

The result? Open wide, the candidate is passing by...

The court left intact the principle that those candidates who proved their viability by collecting $5,000 in small contributions in each of 20 states should receive up to $5 million in federal matching funds for the primaries. And if they get a major party nomination, they still qualify for a million taxpayer-funded war-chest.

That decision should aid those candidates who enjoy popular support, but who lack fat-cat friends. But the court’s lengthy opinion also opened up a slew of loopholes, including:

Upholding the principle that individual Presidential campaign donations be limited to $1,000. But the Court decided that fat cats may spend as much money as they want on behalf of a candidate, as long as the candidate is unaware and does not authorize the spending.

Striking down a limitation of $50,000 that a candidate and his family can spend on a presidential campaign. The decision was soon mocked by the announcement that Lions owner William Clay Ford had been named as Gene McCarthy's running mate. Ford's sole qualification seemed to be his habit of writing checks for liberal presidential aspirants. Ford soon resigned from the ticket - leaving behind much speculation on how much money he slipped McCarthy during his short tenure as a candidate.

Striking down spending limits tor congressional campaigns and presidential candidates who choose not to accept - or to return - federal matching campaign funds. Thus, if a candidate thinks he can raise more than the $10 million ceiling for primary election expenses, he could refuse federal payments and spend without limitation.

In most cases, the law limits candidates to spending $200,000 in each primary state. But when the race nears its end, perhaps in the key California primary in late summer, candidates may find it advantageous to return federal funds in order to legally mount a multi-million dollar blitz.

For illustration, consider what might happen if Ted Kennedy decided to run for president.

Kennedy and his wealthy family could spend unlimited amounts on his behalf. Private donors could also spend without restriction for such items as a massive television ad campaign - as long as Kennedy and his staffers were not directly planning the ads.

Assuming that his campaign staff could gain the necessary contributions for a federal subsidy, Kennedy could receive up to $5 million in federal funds for the primaries. If he won the Democratic nomination, he could launch a $20 million campaign, compliments of the federal treasury.

And finally, if he were willing to forego the potential $25 million subsidy, he could spend without restrictions.

But Kennedy could have his take and spend it, too, if he just made sure that whatever money he spent in excess of federal law was done "indirectly" by supporters without his approval.

The Supreme Court justified gutting the law on the basis of free speech. The Court said that making one's voice heard in a media-saturated society can be very expensive. Thus, it ruled, spending limits on indirect contributions and by candidates were an unconstitutional restraint of free speech.

But, inexplicably, the court upheld the $1,000 contribution limit on personal funds sent directly to campaign committees. The court said such a limitation was a necessary means of preventing large contributors from exerting too much influence on candidates.

It seems inconceivable that a candidate would not become aware that some benefactor had independently contributed perhaps $1 million for television ads, billboards or door-to-door salesmanship. It is as if the court is asking candidates to become the political equivalent of the bawdy house piano player who swears he knows nothing of what goes on upstairs.

But while the ruling won't necessarily keep the high rollers out of federal elections, it preserved some possibility for those with less lofty friends to become more viable candidates by loading their pockets with federal dollars.

For third party candidates, however, Presidential politics will continue to be a rough road.

Democratic and Republican nominees will automatically qualify for a $20 million general election subsidy. But third party candidates will have to scramble for federal funds, based on a formula that fluctuates in relation to the candidates' showing in the last election.

The provision was designed to prevent subsidies from flowing to dozens, or perhaps hundreds, of self-proclaimed candidates. Gene McCarthy calls it "political repression."

"It's like telling people we're going to give you freedom of religion, and then saying, you have two choices: Episcopal or Anglican," McCarthy says.

Alan Lenhoff is a former Michigan Daily editor, now working as a report er for the Oakland Press and a freelance writer.