Inside the Campaign Finance Battle: Court Testimony on the New Reforms

Parties Undermined by Soft Money

Parties Undermined by Soft Money Donald Fowler Donald Fowler served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) from 1995 to 1997. Prior to that, he served as chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Fowler testified for the defense as to his fundraising responsibilities at the DNC and on his view of the corrupting effects of large soft-money contributions and his belief that contributions should be limited to a modest amount. He believes that soft money can harm political parties and that it is spent by state parties to influence federal elections. Party and government officials participate in raising large contributions from interests that have matters pending before the executive offices, the Congress, and other government agencies. Party officials, who are not themselves elected officials, offer to large-money donors opportunities to meet with senior government officials. Donors use these opportunities— White House and congressional meetings—to press their views on matters pending before the government. This process undermines our democratic process and creates a lack of confidence in its fairness on the part of average citizens. I do not fault party officials for playing this role, so long as it is legal. Indeed, I believe that party officials have a responsibility to provide linkage between party members, the people, and their government. Party officials should do this for small and large contributors and those who do not contribute at all. As long as the system permits big-money contributors, however, they will inevitably have a disproportionate advantage. I recognize this as a fact. The solution is to change the party and campaign finance system to eliminate, or at least reduce, the extra influence of contributors of large sums of money. I do believe and insist, however, that party officials have a duty and responsibility to provide linkage between the people and the government. Soft money does not necessarily strengthen political parties. Both major parties use aggressive techniques in raising large sums of money because they feel that they are locked in an “arms race” with one another. Neither believes it can afford to fall behind the other, for fear of being out330 Party Chair Perspectives 09 1583-8 part3d 3/25/03 11:58 AM Page 330 donald fowler 331 spent and losing key federal and state elections. This intense focus on raising larger and larger amounts from relatively few special interest sources does not make for stronger or better parties. This is particularly true for Democrats, because we are the party of average Americans, while most wealthy individuals and special interest groups tend to favor Republican politicians. Raising more money in smaller amounts from a larger number of people would certainly strengthen the Democratic Party by providing us with a stronger base of active citizens. National parties can perform important functions without large soft- or hard-money contributors. Large soft-money contributions are a relatively recent phenomenon, yet the parties were vibrant, functional, and effective prior to the advent of gross soft-money contributions. They can continue to be effective without soft money. As noted, I served as chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. Based on that experience, I know firsthand that various activities, such as get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter identification efforts, voter registration drives, and advertisements that mention federal as well as state candidates, have the effect of promoting candidates for federal office as well as candidates for state office. Soft money mixed with hard money gives parties expanded capabilities. Eliminating soft money, however, does not mean that these joint efforts will have to be eliminated. They will have to be done more efficiently with lower overall expenditures with the assistance of local, grassroots volunteers. In conclusion, contributions of large sums of money to parties and campaigns undermine the integrity of the political process, create inequities in the system, and produce a privileged class of political actors. Sound public policy dictates that these large contributions be eliminated from the American political system. 09 1583-8 part3d 3/25/03 11:58 AM Page 331 ...