This is the first in a series of posts analyzing the language used in debates about campaign finance laws and regulations. Supporters of increased regulation of campaign financing, like all public policy advocates, have a specific lexicon that they use in order to bolster their arguments and convince the public that action is needed. Unfortunately, much of this language is deliberate obfuscation – meant to conjure up an honorable ideal in the eyes of the public, while supporting actual policy that has utterly different goals and effects. These posts are meant to clear up these misconceptions.

This post will deal with the most fundamental term in this topic, “campaign finance reform.”

What Do We Think it Means?

My aunt recently told me at my sister’s wedding, “I think we need campaign finance reform, so that we can throw all of those bums out of Washington.” I imagine this is the sentiment of many Americans.

Everyone likes the idea of “reform” – immigration reform, welfare reform, reforms at the VA, you name it. We support these ideas because we think something is fundamentally wrong with the underlying system and, therefore, big change, that is, “reform,” is needed. And that is what my aunt and most other Americans believe “campaign finance reform” is referring to – we look at the same political officials who, year after year, continue to be re-elected despite shockingly low approval ratings, scandals on both sides of the aisle, and a demonstrable inability to accomplish the basic tasks of governance. We think (with strong encouragement from the media and pro-regulation activists) that the reason this is the case is that these politicians control all of the money in elections and so we need “campaign finance reform” to fundamentally alter the way campaigns and elections happen in this country.

What Does it Really Mean?

The pro-“campaign finance reform” community, however, is not thinking of “campaign finance reform” as a fundamental change to the way campaigns are financed. In Washington-speak, “campaign finance reform” is a tool for dealing with threats. Usually, of course, these are deemed “threats to democracy” but, from the perspective of an incumbent, a “threat to democracy” coincides entirely with any political speech that makes it harder for that individual to get re-elected. In the eyes of the pro-“reform” lobby, independent groups need to be even more heavily regulated because they run ads against incumbents, and organizations running issue ads need to be even more heavily regulated because they are “influencing elections.” But these activities are groups simply expressing their opinion on current politicians and topical political issues.

And, of course, there is a partisan bend to all of this new regulation. In the 2000s, Republicans wanted to regulate bundling (the act of an individual collecting campaign donation checks from a network of wealthy donors and then giving all of those checks to the campaign at one time). Why? Because bundling is and has been a particularly effective tool for donors who give to Democratic politicians. Today, Democrats want to regulate independent groups running issue ads. Lo and behold, this has been a particularly effective tool for groups organized to support Republicans.

In fact, the vast majority of measures to increase “campaign finance reform” involve more regulations on top of a web of existing regulations for the purpose of controlling whatever those in power view as the newest, most pressing electoral threat.

This is not to say that all attempts at “campaign finance reform” are depraved acts of incumbency protection. It is to say, however, that what lawmakers naturally see as the problem is what poses the biggest threat to them, and therefore “campaign finance reform” comes to mean legislation that regulates or “solves” those problems. Unfortunately, what politicians view as the problem is much narrower in scope than the systemic overhaul Americans think of when they hear the term “campaign finance reform.”

Why Does it Matter?

This distinction matters because many of the woes Americans complain about when it comes to our electoral system are exacerbated by “campaign finance reform” as the politicians and regulators think of it. A wealth of academic literature has clearly demonstrated these effects. Regulators want stricter contribution limits on giving to candidates. Incumbents benefit from stricter limits. Regulators want stricter donor disclosure information for independent, non-primarily political groups. Complicated new disclosure rules, on top of the existing regulatory regime, benefits entrenched interests that know how those rules work at inhibiting new voices in politics. And regulators want to prevent independent organizations from running certain issue ads deemed to be “too political” – effectively giving incumbents the power to decide which ads are allowed to be run against them. These ads, despite the opinions of regulators, have been a boon to free and open elections.

And that is just the tip of the regulatory iceberg. The ultimate dream of many regulators is taxpayer-funded elections. But such measures do not make elections more competitive, do not reduce the influence of “special interests” and, if anything, make for a citizenry that views government as even more corrupt.

The evidence shows that, since the 1970s, almost every “campaign finance reform” provision has failed to meet its goal and has strengthened the advantage of incumbent politicians. The pro-“campaign finance reform” lobby is advocating for policies that would result in a maintenance of the governmental status quo – the exact opposite of what most Americans think of when they hear the phrase “campaign finance reform.” Perhaps most ironically of all, regulators disregard the fact that it was existing campaign finance regulations that have perpetuated many of the problems they now decry and have no reticence that more of the same prescriptions will create more of the same results.

In short, “campaign finance reform” doesn’t mean changing the way elections and campaigns work; it means adding more regulations, so that who runs, who speaks, and who participates in elections and campaigns remains exactly the same.