How Campaign Finance Laws Favor the Rich

by Steve Chapman

The contest began with the retirement of 11-term Republican incumbent John Edward Porter, who represents the 10th district. Encompassing Chicago's leafy North Shore suburbs and stretching to the Wisconsin line, it is one of the wealthiest in the country, home to much of the city's business and professional elite. It's only fitting, then, that the 10 candidates in the March 21 Republican primary are spending staggering sums for the privilege of facing a strong Democratic contender, State Rep. Lauren Beth Gash, in November.

One candidate, publishing heiress Shawn Margaret Donnelley, has already sunk $1.9 million of her vast fortune into the race -- most of it going for TV ads. Another, former Sportmart CEO Andrew Hochberg, is in for more than $1 million. Those who have invested only $250,000 or $500,000, who would stand out in most districts, find themselves nearly invisible.

The two big spenders have little else to recommend them. Donnelley is a 30-year-old lobbyist who had never lived in the district and whose chief selling point is that she's the only woman in the GOP race. Hochberg is a political novice who has previously voted in Democratic primaries, and only recently discovered he is a Republican.

The best you can say is that either would probably do a better job in Congress than someone picked at random out of the phone book. Both, however, are running well in the polls. The race does have candidates who are highly qualified to succeed Porter, notably Northbrook Mayor Mark Damisch and former Porter aide Mark Kirk, but they have the handicap of far smaller campaign war chests.

There is nothing wrong with wealthy people enriching political consultants and broadcast corporations in the hope of winning high office. Unlike money obtained from interested patrons, this kind of cash poses no risk of corruption, which is one reason the Supreme Court says it can't be restricted by law. For Shawn Donnelley to spend her money advocating her election is protected by the First Amendment -- just like The Boston Globe spending its money advocating the election of Ted Kennedy.

Rich people will always have an advantage in such contests. But our campaign finance laws, instead of mitigating that advantage, greatly enhance it. While wealthy candidates are running free, others have to race with their shoes tied together.

The problem they face is the restriction on raising cash. No individual can give more than $1,000 during the primary campaign. So if Kirk or Damisch wanted to match Donnelley's outlays, he would have to find 1,900 contributors willing to fork over the maximum allowed. Given that the campaign started on Oct. 12, when Porter made his surprise announcement, a candidate would have to persuade about 100 contributors a day to do their utmost.

The giving limit might make sense if it were essential to prevent corruption. But $1,000 was too paltry to buy a politician even in 1974, when the law was enacted. And today, $1,000 will buy only about what $300 would buy then. In 26 years, Congress has never seen fit to raise the contribution ceiling to reflect inflation.

Why should it? It's the best incumbent-protection measure ever devised. Incumbents rarely have trouble coming up with money regardless, but challengers and newcomers are often stymied by the obligation to do their fund raising in such small chunks.

Even well-known candidates are daunted by the obstacle. Minnesota Democrat Tim Penny, who voluntarily left the House in 1994 after six terms, gave serious thought to running this year against Republican Sen. Rod Grams -- and had a big lead in the polls. One reason he passed, he says, was that "I would have had to spend a minimum of three hours a day on the phone." He figured he would also have to attend an average of one fund-raising event every three days for the entire campaign.

If the $1,000 limit were raised substantially or abolished, he says, "you could reduce fund-raising time by one-half to two-thirds. At least half the people who are ready to give $1,000 could give $2,000 or $3,000 or more. Most could do $4,000 or $5,000 without difficulty." No longer tethered to the fund-raising machine, candidates would have more time to go out and talk to ordinary voters.

Tightly restricting individual donations to candidates does not free our campaigns from the influence of money -- it merely tilts the playing field in favor of rich candidates and incumbents and against everyone else. Maybe Illinois' 10th district will get a good U.S. representative out of this election, but if so, don't thank our campaign finance laws.