In Roll Call, Eliza Newlin Carney claims that “Republicans are developing an appetite for big money as a campaign issue.” (“Republicans Join Attacks on Big Money,” October 28.)
Long-time observers of the debate swirling around campaign finance regulation will no doubt see through this smokescreen. Advocates for greater regulation of “money in politics” predict a revolution in conservative thinking on the topic about as often as people carrying signs on street corners predict the apocalypse. However, while conservatives are as concerned as anyone about elected officials failing to properly represent their views, very few think government regulation that infringes on First Amendment rights of speech and association is a proper response.
Carney first makes her case by identifying three Republican candidates for Congress who asked their Democratic opponents to sign a “people’s pledge,” which calls on independent groups to cease spending in a race in order to give candidates, parties, and media corporations a monopoly on speech about the election. Why would three Republican candidates – Alaska Senate candidate Dan Sullivan, Connecticut 5th Congressional District candidate Mark Greenberg, and West Virginia 3rd Congressional District candidate Evan Jenkins – do such a thing?
The answer is simple: politicians are self-interested, and Sullivan, Greenberg, and Jenkins are all in races where independent groups supporting Democrats far outspend groups supporting Republicans. As Carney herself notes, “[n]ot surprisingly, given the success of Democratic super PACs in these midterms, Esty [Greenberg’s opponent], Rahall [Jenkins’ opponent] and other Democrats presented with such pledges have largely declined.”
Oh, really? Gee, if Democrats (who typically oppose independent spending in campaigns) change their minds when it helps their personal political ambitions, I wonder what might explain why Republicans (who generally support the right of independent groups to speak about candidates and issues) changed their minds after being outspent. It truly is a mystery.
Leaving principle aside, calling for a people’s pledge is the right strategic move for Sullivan, Greenberg, and Jenkins. (And we know how often politicians leave principle aside, including ones that run on public funds.) Once the political environment changes, as it constantly does, we can no longer expect them to arrive at the same conclusion that independent spending is bad. These are not allies in the fight against “big money.” These are politicians.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I do not think politicians’ self-interest in getting re-elected discredits the views espoused by the two major parties on the regulation of political speech. I simply illustrate that individual party members will sometimes break from the party position in cases where adopting it would damage their chances of success in the election. In many cases, this is best for both the candidate and the party, which, after all, would rather have one of its members with a few dissenting views in office than lose the seat entirely. So when three candidates call for a “people’s pledge” out of the hundreds that are running for Congress as Republicans, it does not say anything about the party’s position on “money in politics.” It is quite literally politics as usual.
The other examples Carney uses to argue that Republicans are changing their tune are equally unpersuasive. She points to ads run by candidates such as North Carolina Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis and Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, and statements made by Republican candidates in New York, that attack their opponents for supporting donors and special interests:
“Tillis charged in an ad that Senate Democrat Kay Hagan missed an Armed Services Committee hearing ‘while ISIS grew’ because ‘she prioritized a cocktail party to benefit her campaign.’ … Joni Ernst accused Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley of ‘being supported by [a] California billionaire extreme environmentalist who opposes the Keystone pipeline,’ a reference to billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and his multi-million dollar super PAC, NextGen Climate Action. … Republican House hopeful Richard Tisei charged in a recent debate that 6th district incumbent Democrat Seth Moulton has “raised more money in New York City on Wall Street than he has in the congressional district.’”
None of these statements can be reasonably interpreted as support for even greater campaign finance regulation. In fact, highlighting wealthy donors on “the other side” is a way of urging your supporters to give more. Denouncing money in politics feels less sincere when used as a fundraising tactic, but you can be sure these candidates would respond to contributions with “thank you kindly,” and not “you’re corrupting democracy!”
Moreover, these statements are all attacks on an opponent’s character or policy positions, which is par for the course in campaigning. This may be the root of misunderstanding among left-leaning supporters of so-called campaign finance “reform,” who sense that conservatives who are suspicious of “limousine liberals” and Hollywood ought to be on their side. There is a big difference, especially to conservatives, between the freedom to do something and actually doing it. Just because candidates are criticizing their opponent’s behavior does not mean they want government to be the one to put a stop to it.
Carney should have realized she was missing something when she suggested “even GOP Sen. Ted Cruz” was using money in politics talking points by supporting a lifetime ban on members of Congress becoming lobbyists. Of course, lobbying and campaign finance are completely different issues, but regardless, if the most outspoken opponent of the Udall amendment is on your list of politicians with a growing appetite for restricting money in politics as a campaign issue, you’ve probably made a mistake.
After looking at the examples Carney offers, the only evidence of a changing tide is just a few self-interested politicians breaking with the party line due to local circumstances and others employing evergreen political rhetoric misconstrued as something more substantive. Candidates – regardless of their party affiliation – who make generic promises to ‘stand up to special interests’ are not announcing their support for the DISCLOSE Act. What Carney describes as “a curious twist that reflects growing voter focus on political money,” is actually proof of something far older and simpler: politicians of all stripes will say whatever they have to in order to gain an advantage.
