In Defense of Special Interests

The word from Washington is that banning soft money will rid American politics of nefarious special interests. That's true--and American democracy will be weakened because of it.

The legislation in question, Shays-Meehan, "will restore the spirit and letter of the law, making every American's voice as loud as those of the special interests," writes John McCain in the Washington Post.

The Founders felt the same way about special interests. "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction [or special interest] can readily unite and oppress the weaker [special interest]," wrote Madison in Federalist No. 51, "anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature."

But let's return to the words of Senator McCain. How every American's voice will be amplified by Shays-Meehan remains an open question. In fact, Shays-Meehan is more about silencing American voices than projecting them.

For instance, if President Bush signs Shays-Meehan into law, so-called "issue ads" will be banned in the 60 days preceding an election. Why? No answer is given. Presumably to protect Americans from special interests, the bill instead seems to protect politicians from criticism by both the left and the right.

There's little doubt that issue ads can be tedious and annoying. But as exercises in political education, such advertisements are peerless: succinct and pointed, issue ads point out hypocrisy, deceit, and corruption in any candidate or policy. Under campaign finance reform laws, however, neither NARAL nor the NRA would be able to air its criticisms of a candidate in the crucial days leading up to an election.

Similarly, supporters of Shays-Meehan argue that special interests like corporations and unions "buy" candidates through unregulated soft-money donations to political parties.

But corporate donations to both political parties and individual candidates have been banned since McCain's idealized era of progressive reform. This means that today's soft-money donations to political parties or issue-minded political action committees come not from corporations but from individuals. In some cases those individuals happen to work at a corporation, a union, or a local 7-11.

Why do these individuals, criminalized under Shays-Meehan because they happen to be gainfully employed, contribute soft money directly to political parties? Because previous "reforms" forbid individuals to give more than $1000 to an individual candidate. The individual impulse to influence the political process, the very bread and butter of democracy, cannot be stopped by regulation alone. Thus individuals associated with particular special interests give money to the parties because they are allowed to under law. That is, until now.

True, the special interests demonized by McCain tend to be wealthy ones. But wealth comes in a variety of forms and pursues diverse agendas. There is a limousine liberal for every corporate plutocrat. Moreover, it's common sense that wealthy interests like Mr. Burns would have more money to contribute to political parties or candidates than, say, Homer Simpson. Those with a larger "stake in society" have a greater interest in social outcomes.

As Robert Samuelson pointed out in last week's Washington Post, "Even after Bush's tax cut, the wealthiest 10 percent [of Americans] pay roughly half of federal taxes." Samuelson also noted that in contrast to the costs incurred on the wealthy, the benefits they receive are relatively nil. Government programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and free school lunches favor the middle class and the poor.

So Shays-Meehan engages in class warfare, making it illegal for a certain (read: wealthy) segment of the population to have its voice heard. But it does more than bow slavishly before the idols of American populism. Shays-Meehan also undercuts the existing constitutional apparatus that protects the United States from being hijacked by special interests.

In contrast, the Founders proposed an alternative solution to the problem of special interests, one that also protects individual liberty. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition," wrote Madison. "The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place."

In other words, the correct way to deal with special interests is not to try to silence them through central control (which would mean, ipso facto, the ascent of a stronger special interest) but to multiply them. The more interests battling for dominance, the less of a chance any particular interest will take precedence.

"In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of the majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good," Madison concludes.

What is the greatest protection against governance by devilish special interests? Not "reform" motivated by political expedience and catalyzed by the collapse of Enron, not the abrogation of the individual's guaranteed rights to unregulated political expression, and not the slow degradation of America's political parties by starving them of sources of funding.

No, the best defense against special interests is the Constitution of the United States of America, which Shays-Meehan violates at every opportunity.

Senator McCain, read thy Federalist!

Matt Continetti is a Columbia College junior majoring in history.