Resolution Adopted by the CCAR
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
Adopted by the 114th Annual Convention
of
the Central Conference of American Rabbis
Omni Shoreham,
Washington D.C.
March, 2003
Background
Thousands of years ago the Bible warned
against mingling money and politics. Deuteronomy 16 states, “You
shall not judge unfairly: you shall know no partiality; you shall not
take bribes, for bribes blind the eyes of the discerning and upset the
plea of the just.” The Talmud, asks in Tractate Kethuboth “What is
the reason for {[the prohibition against taking] a gift? Because as
soon as a man receives a gift from another he becomes so well disposed
towards him that he becomes like his own person, and no man sees
himself in the wrong.”
Our
tradition also speaks clearly and unhesitatingly to the critical
importance of appointing leaders according to their merit, and for
maintaining the ability of leaders to act independently for the public
good, unfettered by the demands of the wealthy. The Talmud quotes the
biblical verse “You shall not make with Me gods of silver, neither
shall you make for yourselves gods of gold.” (Exodus 20:23) Since
the fashioning of all idols, whether made of gold or wood, is
prohibited, Rav Ashi explains that the verse actually condemns a judge
who comes to his or her position because of silver or gold. The
Shulchan Aruch, a 16th century compilation of Jewish law, goes further
to state that “If someone appoints as a judge a person who is not fit
for the position he violates a Biblical prohibition. If a judge was
appointed on account of his money, it is forbidden to appear before
him for a judgment.” (Shulchan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat 8:1) In today
‘s electoral system it has become too common for politicians to win
public office because of the size of their campaign coffers.
On March 27 2002,
President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 (The McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan Bill). The historic
legislation prohibits national party committees, federal candidates
and federal office holders from raising or spending unlimited soft
money campaign contributions from corporations, labor unions and
wealthy individuals. The law prohibits corporations and labor unions
from using their funds to pay for ads featuring a federal candidate
that are broadcast to the candidate’s electorate within 30 days of
the primary and 60 days of the general election. It also increases
limits on individual contributions to House, Senate and presidential
campaigns to $2,000.
The
Federal Elections Commission is charged with enforcing election laws
in America. The six-member commission consists of three appointees
from each major political party. Since the passing of the McCain-
Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation the FEC has voted to limit the
effect of some of the new campaign finance regulations. The law
prohibited Presidents and federal elected officials from soliciting
soft money contributions for a political party. By a 4 to 2 vote the
FEC adopted a regulation saying that the President and other federal
officeholders can “recommend” or “suggest” that a donor make a
soft-money contribution as long as they do not explicitly “ask” for
the contribution. The new campaign finance law also prohibited state
parties from spending any soft money to influence federal elections.
The FEC voted to allow state parties to use soft-money in get-out-
the-vote efforts that influence federal elections, including acquiring
voting lists, setting up phone banks, and sending out mass mailings.
Even if the letter and
spirit of the BPCRA were vigorously enforced, the law would be only
the first step on a long road toward a democracy where a person’s
wealth no longer determines his or her political influence.
Federal candidates raised $2.2
billion in hard money during the 2000 election cycle, donations that
were not affected by the new law. Even with a complete ban on soft
money, our elected representatives will still be beholden to wealthy
donors. Those who give hard money donations are not representative of
the rest of the American population: Only one quarter of one percent
of the population of the United States gave a hard money contribution
of $200 or more in the 2000 election cycle. A 1997 survey of such
donors revealed that four-fifths had an annual family income of more
than $100,000 a year and that more than nine out of ten were white.
Corporate and Labor PACs are also a huge source of hard money. 71 U.S.
Senators and 188 U.S. Representatives, for example, took direct hard-
money donations from Enron. 75% of $19 million contributed by the
auto industry in 2000 was in hard money. Over 60% of the real estate
industry’s $79 million was hard money, as was 40% of the
pharmaceutical industry’s $19 million donated during the 2000
election cycle.
Studies based
on data from the Federal Election Commission show a startling
correlation between contributions and votes. The skyrocketing cost of
election campaigns has favored the wealthy candidate and created an
increasing dependency on PAC money.
“Clean Money” campaign reform reduces the inherent
conflicts of interest that arise when the campaigns of public servants
are privately financed. Under a “clean money” system, candidates
who agree to forego private contributions, accept strict spending
limits, and demonstrate a significant threshold of public support,
receive an equal and limited amount of money to run their campaigns
from a publicly financed clean election fund. Clean Money campaigns
have been successful in Arizona, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine and
have been implemented to varying degrees.
On a national level, the current campaign finance
system has also proven to significantly disadvantage challengers, who
are often unable to raise the campaign funds necessary to buy the time
on national television that is essential in getting their message out
to voters.
In the 2000
election cycle, approximately $1 billion of the total $4 billion
raised was spent on television advertising. Between 1980 and 2000, the
amount of money spent on political ads more than quadrupled, even
after adjusting for inflation. The rising costs of political ads
corresponds with a reduction in the amount of time broadcast
television devotes to substantive coverage of issues, debates,
conventions and candidate speeches. The three national network
nightly newscasts devoted 28 percent less time to coverage of the 2000
campaign than they did to the 1988 campaign, the last open-seat
contest for the presidency. The typical local television station
aired just 45 seconds a night of candidate discourse in the month
before the 2000 election, and the national networks aired just 64
seconds a night–both far below a five-minute a night voluntary
standard recommended by a White House advisory panel charged with
updating the public interest obligations of broadcasters.
Congress must legislate an end to
this pernicious influence of money on our political system.
THEREFORE, the Commission on Social
Action of Reform Judaism resolves to:
Support legislation to establish a system of free
electronic media time for candidate ads, debates, and issue discussion
before every election;
Call
on the Federal Elections Commission to uphold the letter and spirit of
the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002; and
Affirm our commitment to public financing of
political campaigns including support for state level “clean money”
initiatives.