The proposal to cap donations to political action committees at $5,000 per donor per calendar year in Maine is a classic example of an idea that seems reasonable. In fact, the measure would probably do nothing – and nothing’s probably the best possible outcome. In the worst-case scenario, such a measure could lead to an expensive court case that further unwinds and deregulates the country’s existing campaign finance structure.

To begin with, if the number chosen by the citizens advancing the proposal – $5,000 – seems arbitrary and quite large, that’s because it’s pegged directly to the current federal contribution limit, as are other limits already in place in Maine. While that’s all well and good for national or federal races, Maine is a relatively inexpensive state in which to run a campaign.

The two biggest opponents of the recently decided Pine Tree Power referendum question, for instance, spent around $30 million combined. Most of those funds came from commercial sources directly, but does anyone really doubt that those same companies wouldn’t have been able to raise the money in $5,000 increments if that had been the rule in place? They would have simply encouraged individuals – like, say, top Avangrid executives – to donate that lower amount instead.

Indeed, we already see this in federal races, where the donation limits have encouraged the practice of bundling, where top fundraisers run around raising the money for candidates or campaigns in smaller increments. The problem with contribution limits is that they don’t seem to do much to curb spending; they just encourage the development of creative workarounds.

Another problem with this proposal is that only Maine-based PACs would be subject to these limits. While it’s understandable why the proposal was written that way – attempting to apply the limits to out-of-state PACs would have been even more legally tenuous – it leaves a loophole the size of the New Hampshire border in the proposal. It’s fairly simple for an entity, whether it’s a corporation or the PAC it runs, to be legally established outside the state of Maine and therefore fall outside these limits. It’s a run-around that’s far easier for large corporations than it is for the average person, of course, so in the end the law might end up harming local citizen-based efforts more than big corporations … presumably the opposite of the proponents’ intent.

It’s also worth pointing out that this bill is sponsored by out-of-staters who are designing it as a test case; they admit that themselves. If this bill is passed, it’s not going to be cheap if the state has to defend it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court – and the measure’s supporters won’t be around to foot the legal bill afterwards. Instead, they’ll vanish back into the ether, leaving Maine taxpayers to pay for it.

Rather than imposing more limits on political activity that only encourage obfuscation, we need to radically reinvent the entire system. We can start by eliminating any and all limits on donations to campaigns and campaign expenditures. This would make it less necessary to have political action committees – which were originally implemented as a reform – at all. Instead, candidates could raise and spend whatever money they needed themselves directly. That’s not just more direct, it’s more honest, letting citizens see exactly who is paying for political activity and how much everyone is donating, rather than rerouting it through third parties on both ends.

A key element to this proposal would be absolute transparency on all campaign expenditures and donations. Ideally, there wouldn’t be a limit on this requirement, and if there was one, it would be very low. In the past, this would have required hours of meticulous bookkeeping, but it’s done much more easily now thanks to technology. Maine has some elements of this reporting now, but it should be dramatically expanded. Any entity spending money in politics ought to be able to handle it.

It would be hard to see how a radically transparent campaign finance system without limits could be overturned by the courts. Sadly, the reality is that while we could certainly implement this new system, special interests on both sides are more interested in maintaining systems they can easily manipulate. That’s how we got to where are now, and this proposed limit on PAC contributions will do little, if anything, to change it. Instead, it will just drape another layer of feel-good regulation over political speech that clever lawyers will be able to find holes in – if it survives court challenges at all.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Opinion: Banning flavored tobacco won’t have intended result

Next »

Opinion: Beachfront property owners should learn to chill