RALEIGH – Campaign finance reform is serious business for some and a political game for many more. Right now, a past action by the N.C. General Assembly that promised little more than symbolism has become substance – but hardly substantial.
Here’s what the legislature did. Responding to criticism that campaign fundraising was out-of-control and corrupting the legislative process, lawmakers passed a law to prohibit members from raising money from lobbyists during legislative sessions.
As a practical matter, this has little import. Political parties and other leaders (local and federal) can raise money from lobbyists anytime to be used for party purposes. And state lawmakers can raise money from the companies and associations who hire lobbyists. And lawmakers can always collect on implicit promises of support in between sessions. To suggest that such chronological and procedural issues serve to place a serious impediment between would-be bribers and bribees is to indulge a fantasy.
Now, the symbolism has turned into something else. Some around the state capital are suggesting that Democrats are dragging out the legislative session this year because they have more campaign dollars in the bank than their GOP counterparts do and can thus afford to freeze the fundraising game.
Perhaps this is true, and in the short run lobbyists do control the purse strings of some moneyed interests. I have my doubts that this strategy is either clearly thought out or likely to succeed, given the obvious ways around the rule, but I can’t think of any good reason to keep the rule, either. It should go away, replaced with full and immediate disclosure of all campaign donations so reporters and the public keep a watchful eye on things.
It just goes to show you how ill-considered changes in campaign laws can have uncertain and anti-competitive effects, and why simpler rules that respect personal freedom and sunshine in government are far superior than the kind of “campaign finance reform” favored by the Left. After all, their real goal is not to “level the playing field” but to changes the rules of the game so fundamentally as to render their favored candidates victorious.