Ever since the Tillman Act of 1907 banned corporate contributions to federal-office campaigns, politicians have morphed ever so steadily into rat-like figures scurrying about in the dark for opportunistic hunks of cheese. Or perhaps "mole-like" would be a better metaphor, because campaign-finance reforms have produced little but fruitless games of whack-a-mole: dynamite one subterranean corridor of influence buying or unfair financial advantage, and some politically creative genius is sure to tunnel two legal paths around it.
The latest 800-pound gorillas (I seem to be stuck on mammalian metaphors) to muscle their way into the zoo of politics are, as you know, the 527s -- those third-party cabals that are, of course, utterly independent of any candidate. Although they must report their loot and expenditures to the IRS, they may also accept contributions in any amount from anyone -- like in the old pre-Tillman Act days -- and therefore lie outside any pain-in-the-ass FEC restrictions.
The most notorious and lethally effective 527s to date were those associated with -- oops, utterly independent of, I meant to say -- the Bush campaigns of 2000 and 2004. Texas oil money flowed like rancid honey on George's behalf, first devastating John McCain's insurrection; then, four years later, bundles of mysterious cash from nowhere Swift-boated John Kerry into hapless obscurity. The nearly one-third of a billion dollars George himself spent wasn't enough to bank on, and since the 527 expenditures were, as we all know, utterly independent of George, he could just smile and deny having any leverage over putting a stop to their scurrilous lies.
Now, though we're still in 2007, the 527s are already looming large. The money raised by candidates themselves -- often, candidates who have vowed to abide by publicly financed, matching-fund caps -- is becoming increasingly insignificant when compared to the massive amounts flooded rather anonymously into the political marketplace.
To wit, as the L.A. Times reports: "The Democratic presidential race heated up Saturday, with Barack Obama charging that rival John Edwards committed campaign hypocrisy by deriding political organizations called 527s at the same time he allegedly will benefit from their spending."
But the benefits fall into more than just the "alleged" category. A 527 group, the "Alliance for a New America," just purchased a whopping $756,000 worth of pro-Edwards air time in Iowa, and lo and behold, one of its officers just happens to have been Edwards' presidential campaign manager in 2004. And although union contributions to federal candidates were banned by the Smith-Connally Act of 1943, the media buy -- which is largely financed by the Service Employees International Union -- is perfectly legal. It comes from a 527, so it is innocently and utterly independent of the candidate, right?
Then comes the charade, the Kabuki dance, the laughable display of specious sincerity: "I can't talk to them about it at all. We're not allowed to coordinate in any way," said Edwards. "I don't have any direct control [note the adjective] over it, because the law requires that I stay out of it. But I would prefer that all 527s -- not just this one -- but all the 527s stay out of Iowa. But I have no legal authority over that."
No "controlling legal authority," anyway, although he would "prefer" -- now there's a blistering denunciation -- that his friends not spend three-quarters of a million dollars on his behalf, especially since he's running third in the political fight of his life.
Hey, don't get me wrong. I like Edwards. And if I were in his political shoes, I'd be grabbing for all the 527 cashiers that I could possibly non-coordinate. I'd send them flowers, I'd respect them in the morning, I'd promise to love them from afar with all my heart, and I would absolutely deny any rumors of any sub-rosa tawdriness.
Furthermore, this particular 527 -- it "encourag[es] voters to ask the candidates how they will make the middle class and working Americans their top priority in Washington, while ensuring that special interests and corporate America lose their stranglehold on our government" -- issues forth a profound message of social decency. The problem, of course, as George proved in 2000 and 2004, is that the dollar-hemorrhaging Dark Side will always be able to overshadow the Light, and do so in a way that its thoroughly gullible troops will buy hook, line, and political stinker.
The 527 "Trust Huckabee," for instance, is phoning around Iowa smelling up the governor's opponents. But, says the eminently trustworthy Huckabee, "It's not being done with any cooperation, coordination or the blessing of our campaign. In fact, I don't think it's anybody whose really supporting me. I really don't." Now there's an entry for Ripley's, if I ever saw one.
The answer so far to curing all this seemingly incurable skulduggery is simply to let the charade-chips fall where they may, while relying on an educated, informed and engaged democratic body to sort the gems from the bullshit. From the chaos comes order, is the theoretical proposition. But the real theoretical element in that defense of our campaign-finance system is the part about an educated, informed and engaged democratic body.
For we're less committed democrats than we are ignorant consumers. We'll buy anything the merchants of bullshit have to sell. And if you're tempted to question that vulnerably over-the-top proposition, just look at where the principal 527-beneficiary of 2000 and 2004 is sitting.