PRINCETON, NJ -- Even if the House ends up passing campaign finance reform legislation this year, and even if President Bush signs such legislation into law, it is doubtful that the people of the United States will be wildly ecstatic.
At first glance, this is curious because all of our research indicates that Americans are -- like Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold -- displeased with the current system of campaign financing and strongly in favor of reforming the process. Indeed, in response to almost any question about campaign finance reform we put in front of Americans, the public gives back strongly affirmative responses. Most recently, 76% told us that they favor laws limiting the money that corporations and unions could give to political parties. A few months ago, 72% said that they favored abolishing "soft money" specifically.
But at the same time Americans have always assigned a low priority to campaign finance in their wish list of legislative actions. Additionally, only about a fifth of Americans think that such laws will have a major impact on how government works. Most tellingly, 64% say that even if these laws are passed, special interests will still find a way to maintain their power in Washington.
Why is this? At least part of the reason may be practical. The core issue in campaign finance reform is the perceived susceptibility of elected representatives to slant their votes toward those making large campaign contributions. The two-thirds of Americans who say that special interests will still have their influence regardless of new campaign finance laws may reflect the view that -- like alcohol in prohibition, drugs today, or guns in the hands of criminals -- the attempt to prevent access is often less effective than focusing on the end user.
Just this past week, a new Gallup poll showed again that Americans are most likely to believe that the single most effective way to prevent school shootings is to focus on the students themselves, their parents, and the core home environment, more so than attempting to limit students' access to weapons or to install more school security devices. In similar fashion, asked about the most effective way to curb drug abuse in this country, Americans are more likely to choose an increased emphasis on educating potential drug users themselves, rather than the attempt to stop the flow of drugs.
In the case of campaign finance reform, Americans may be asking "Will anything but a remedy focused on changing the representatives themselves really work?"
Let's look at this in a little more detail. Campaign finance reform legislation in many ways embodies a deeply cynical view of members of the House and Senate. At its core is the assumption that the campaign process must be shielded from soft money contributions, because otherwise those who are elected will yield to temptation and slant their votes towards the wishes of the money's originators. The assumption seems to be that if the big dollars are allowed to flow into party coffers, it is almost inevitable that the ultimate decisions and votes of elected representatives will in turn be slanted towards the desires of those giving these large donations -- resulting in laws, rules, and regulations that reflect not the best interests of the country, nor the wishes of the people, but instead the wishes of the "special interests."
This does not imply a very flattering view of Congress. If those elected were honest, ethical, determined to represent their constituencies, and totally immune to differential treatment of those with the most money, then campaign contributions would not matter. Unfortunately, that is not the picture endorsed by the public. Our polling shows that Americans rate the honesty and ethics of their elected representatives at the low end of the scale. Just 24% of Americans rate the honesty and ethics of senators as "high" or "very high," and only 21% give this rating to members of the House. This compares to 79% who rate nurses' honesty and ethics as high or very high. Members of the House and Senate are rated about the same as building contractors, auto mechanics and journalists, just a little above lawyers, and not all that far ahead of car salesmen -- who bottom out the list with a 7% honesty rating. Based on another long-standing Gallup trend, we find that only 24% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress -- near the bottom of the list of institutions tested -- on par with organized labor, and just a little ahead of HMOs, but far behind such institutions as the military, the church, and the police.
Certainly, Americans are under no illusions about the potential susceptibility of those whose actions ultimately are the focus of campaign finance bills. This helps explain why Americans so readily agree with the idea behind campaign finance legislation.
Americans' ultimate cynicism about such legislation's efficacy, though, may well be based on a disagreement about such legislation's ultimate target. We hear the public saying that it is all well and good to restrict donations, but until the basic honesty and ethics of those at the core of needed reform -- the elected representatives -- are changed, there is little hope that we will see dramatic change.
Of course, elected representatives cannot take all of the blame for the current situation. One of the arguments for campaign finance reform focuses on the need for huge amounts of money in order to run effective campaigns. Implicit in this state of affairs is the assumption that the voting public does not always ferret out the best candidate, but can be easily swayed by someone who spends excessive amounts of money. This implies a less than flattering view of the public.
Perhaps we also need changes in the way the average American approaches the voting situation. If the public would vote for the honest, ethical candidate who had the constituencies' best interests at heart, then perhaps the potential impact of those with a lot of money on the legislative process ultimately wouldn't matter.
But at its root, the public's cynicism is probably best reflected in the data that show how little confidence the average American has in the men and women elected to serve their interests. It may well be that what the American public would really like to see is a way to ensure that elected representatives are a) ethical and full of integrity and b) reflective in their votes of the wishes of their constituencies. From the public's perspective, what is needed is not only "campaign finance reform" legislation, but also "congressperson and senators reform" legislation as well.