If the uses of campaign finance rules to battle undue influence or its appearance will remain perpetually bogged down in disagreement – – particularly over whether the benefits of regulation justify the cost – – it does not follow that money in politics as a question for public policy has run its course. The question may have been overemphasized as one of corruption of the governmental process: corruption of the electoral process is also increasingly a concern, if less clearly and distinctly articulated. Critics of the condition of campaigns cite a range of problems with them, most recently and with rising alarm the candidates’ and parties’ loss of control to “outside groups” —Super PACs and (c) organizations—that operate under a different set of rules.

An astute piece by Mark Schmitt refocuses the argument on that point—the role of money in distorting the operation of the electoral process. He singles out for attention how a select community of donors influence the selection of candidates and the presentation of issues, raising questions of accountability and of the quality of voter engagement. This perspective has major implications for reform programs.

The Commission seems to be back at it again: quarreling publicly over disclosure rules and policy applied to the Internet advertising. The Republican Commissioners are calling for a public uprising of sorts against Commissioner Ravel’s call for reconsidering those rules and policy as part of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. They are urging public comments—they have in mind protests—attacking tighter reporting requirements. The Internet has been provided with lenient regulatory treatment, a choice for which the Commission has been generally applauded, and the Republican Commissioners want to keep things that way. Commissioner Ravel has both moved to reopen the question and indicated her view that more regulation may be in order—that significant sums spent for political advertising on the Internet should be viewed, for disclosure purposes, as no different than broadcast, cable or satellite communications.

Those who are rooting for a Commission that works better and more collaboratively across the partisan divide have reason for concern. Only a few weeks ago, the Commissioner managed to approve rulemakings to take account of recent Supreme Court decisions. The vote was not unanimous, but a 4-2 decision was progress, and at the Commission table, there was hope expressed that the agreement reached that day marked a fresh commitment among Commissioners to explore additional areas for agreement. It would be a shame if now, in the flap over Internet regulation, the Commission quickly regressed to caustic exchange and administrative stalemate.

A recent posting here reviewed possible paths for campaign finance regulation: a determined attack on loopholes, a biding for time until scandal possibly arrives and allows for legislative reform and expanded opportunity for regulation, or an openness to rethinking the issue?

Which of these is chosen will be influenced by which aspect of campaign finance is thought to be really pressing: how much money is spent (volume); how it is spent (influence), and how much is publicly known about it (transparency). Of course, in any critique of campaign finance, from the left or right, there is a little bit of everything thrown in, but one of these three considerations is usually emphasized over the others.

This is the position I submitted to the New York Times’ “Room for Debate” Forum, on the question of the state of campaign finance regulation and possible directions for its future:

 

Forty years after the passage of the federal campaign finance laws, we have considerable experience with how they work, but the debate about them has become tired and repetitive. No one is happy with the situation as it now stands: not those who worry about corruption, not those troubled by the First Amendment cost of extensive regulation, and not those who yearn to bolster public confidence in the integrity of their government. There is everywhere evidence that reconsideration and rebuilding are in order.

What an odd opinion from the Court of Appeals in Stop This Insanity. The Court decides that the regulatory burden imposed on a political activity satisfies constitutional requirements if there is an alternative, simpler route to roughly the same result. This is questionable enough, but the Court takes additional comfort in the fact that, in its view, the activity—corporate PAC activity—is “functionally obsolete”, a “relic”, an “artifact”. Stop This Insanity, Inc. v. FEC, No. 13-5008, 2014 WL 3824225, at *1-3 (D.C. Cir Aug. 5, 2014).  So, somehow, the constitutional standing of a legal restriction is strengthened by its pointlessness.