Money Talks

Free speech includes spending

During their head-to-head 1980 election battle, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan each received $29.4 million in public funds. In return, both agreed not to raise any private money. But groups of private money raisers not formally affiliated with either candidate pumped an added $10.6 million into the contest; all but $28,000 of it benefited Reagan and was used mostly for advertising. Earlier, the Federal Election Commission had tried to block the outlays, citing a statutory spending ceiling of $1,000 for independent groups. But a three-judge federal court in Washington called the limit an unconstitutional infringement of free speech. Last week the Supreme Court, in a 4-4 split vote, left that decision standing. (Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did not participate, for undisclosed reasons.) The likely result is that in the 1984 presidential election, private money will continue to have the right to talk as loudly as it can.

The ruling was the latest blow to the ballyhooed reform scheme enacted by Congress ten years ago to clean up presidential and congressional elections. In 1976 the high court first ruled that the reforms could not constitutionally limit independent expenditures. At the same time it removed a lid on how much of their own money candidates could spend to get elected. That suit was brought by a surprising coalition, including James Buckley and Eugene McCarthy. But the first ruling did not deal with independent groups supporting presidential candidates who choose to accept public financing. Such candidates voluntarily accept curbs on their own spending. The FEC, joined by Common Cause, argued that unlimited independent donations would undermine the purpose of public financing.

When a majority of the Supreme Court failed to accept that argument last week, the action ended the likelihood of leashing independent political activities any time soon. There is no immediate prospect of any other challenge reaching the Supreme Court or of any action by Congress. The seeming beneficiaries are the Republicans. The richest political action committees, which have become a major force under the new rules, tend to be made up of such pro-G.O.P. elements as conservative businessmen and members of the Moral Majority and the New Right. But pro-Democratic groups are assembling to join the financing fray. And experts therefore predict even greater spending by such organizations in coming elections. That result is fine with Senator Harrison Schmitt of New Mexico, whose Americans for Change was a winner in the case. "It involves more people in the political process," he says.

To disgruntled reformers like Common Cause President Fred Wertheimer, many of the expenditures are "independent" in name only. Says he: "There's a lot of winking going on." Certainly Ronald Reagan is not unaware of just who spent that $10 million to boost him for President. The court and the Congress have thus worked together--or rather at cross-purposes--to produce precisely the opposite of the intended result. In large part, campaign-spending reform laws were passed to decrease the influence of big donors. The court then cut down most of those limits and left intact other curbs on candidates and their parties. That has helped to weaken political party structures; by comparison, the big donor is stronger than ever.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.