|
|
 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Business leaders condemn U.S. election financingCommittee calls for "soft money" banBrooks Jackson/CNN
March 18, 1999 WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, March 18) -- The 19th-century journalist Charles A. Dana said: "When a dog bites a man, that's not news, but when a man bites a dog that is news." This is that kind of story. For the first time a major business group is saying the way the U.S. pays for its elections is dangerously out of control.
Edward Kangas is the chief executive of the accounting firm Deloitte and Touche. He says: "A government which is overly susceptible to money will be viewed at the least as suspect, and at the worst as corrupt. Bad government is bad for business." The Committee for Economic Development (CED) released sweeping proposals for change Thursday, including a ban on unregulated "soft money" in elections; hundreds of millions of dollars in public financing; spending limits for House and Senate races; and regulation of so-called "issue ads" that allow parties to get around all limits. A milestone, according to one of the report's authors, Columbia University president George Rupp. "I think it's terribly important that a moderate group of business leaders has come out in favor of fixing what clearly is broken, namely our system of financing congressional campaigns," Rupp says. It was the avalanche of unregulated money in the 1996 presidential campaign that convinced CED trustees something needed to be done. "Until I understood the depth of the problem, I was like a lot of Americans, I don't think I cared too much," Kangas says. The CED says soft money more than doubled between the 1994 congressional elections and last year's midterm contest, increasing from $102 million to more than $220 million. Who gives? Mostly business, 60 percent of soft money came from corporations and trade groups. Another 24 percent from wealthy individuals, only four percent from labor unions. And much of the soft money has come from the CED's own supporters. A million from AT&T, more than $700,000 each from Bell Atlantic, Pfizer pharmaceuticals, BellSouth, for a total of $6.8 million in soft money from 21 of the group's biggest backers. And yet the CED blamed soft money in part for declining voter turnout and public distrust of government. How is that bad for business? Kangas pointed to turmoil in Asia and Russia. "We fundamentally look at our campaign financing and election processes, and we see many of the same fissures and cracks in the foundation that led to the collapse of financial markets elsewhere in the world, and we ask, 'What might that hold for us here in America?'" Kangas asked. The CED says it will take these recommendations on the road to California, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Texas and Florida among others, seeking backing from business leaders there. This is important because business money flows mostly to Republicans and it has been Republican leaders in Congress most responsible for blocking any change in campaign finance laws. |
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MORE STORIES:Thursday, March 18, 1999
• Business leaders condemn U.S. election financing • Democrats say Republican budget sacrifices Medicare for tax cuts • Court clears way for Justice investigation of Starr • House OKs missile defense plan • David Duke files for Congressional race • Judge dismisses count against Hubbell • Democrats revive campaign funding bill • Senate saves independent counsel funding • Poll: Mrs. Clinton ahead in New York race • Government estimates Y2K cost at $6.8B • Debate opens over HMO rights • Term limits backer rethinks pledge • Web sites to play role in 2000 race • House leaders consider pay raise • GOP budgets, emphasizing tax cuts, Social Security, move forward | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
