Related Articles

As I write this, the drama over campaign finance reform is still playing out in Washington, D.C.

IBEW members may be wondering what all the talk about "soft money" and "hard money" means for the future of politics in the United States. From where I sit, campaign finance reform in its current form would not make things much better and could make them worse.

The centerpiece of the bill is the ban on "soft money."  This term refers to the money that comes into the political process without being subject to regulation by the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Soft money generally goes to the political parties; under current law it cannot go directly to federal candidates. Soft money typically comes from corporations, wealthy individuals, unions or interest groups. Boy, I hate being listed with those people. Let me make it clear that the IBEW does not directly contribute general treasury funds to political candidates or parties. To the extent that we have given any soft money, it has been funds voluntarily contributed by individual members or local unions.

Soft money is widely viewed in the media as the scourge of clean, open politics. But since most soft money goes to political parties, it is the Democratic or Republican organizations that use it to run ads on behalf of their candidates or finance party-building activities. In reality, the spending of interest groups constitutes the "outside" money that do-gooders hate. Organized labor has run issue advertisements during the political season, as have single-issue groups with positions on the environment, guns or local matters, to name but a few.

The Senate's version of campaign finance reform prohibits these so-called outside groups, including unions, from running issue-ads within 60 days of an election. As currently written, the legislation could even be construed as barring us from communicating with our members via the Journal or leaflet in support of a particular candidate during that period. This is the section of the bill most likely to be the subject of a court challenge on the grounds that it is an unconstitutional limit on free speech. Should the courts rule that way - and I wouldn't bet against it - then the reform bill wouldn't ultimately touch this form of political spending.

That leaves "hard money."  This is the most carefully regulated part of the process. Hard money generally consists of voluntary contributions by individuals directly to campaigns or to political action committees (PACs) - like our IBEW PAC - which then in turn contribute directly to candidates. Hard money is totally voluntary, subject to limits, and every dollar must be accounted for to the FEC, whose reports are available to the public. As it now stands, the campaign finance reform bill would raise the hard money limits that PACs or wealthy individuals could contribute to campaigns. This makes the most regulated form of political money more important. But it also increases the influence of wealthy individuals, who would be able to give up to $2,000 per election to candidates of their liking. Since research shows that only one-seventh of one percent of the U.S. population is able to give at this level - and I don't think many union members could work enough o.t. to be among them - this elite group would almost certainly support candidates not to the liking of working families.

One thing is clear. IBEW PAC could be even more important to our future. If the hard money limits are raised, we must be able to fight as hard as we can to counter the influence of Big Money. We will never be able to compete with business interests on a per dollar basis, but we must do what we can to balance the debate by supporting worker-friendly candidates. This also underscores what we have been saying for years about old-fashioned grassroots politics. Voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts will take on new importance and play to organized labor's strength.

Jerry O'Connor,
International Secretary-Treasurer