by Charles H. Crawford
It has probably not escaped the attention of anyone that the politicians running for president have repeatedly made it clear that they will not be bought off by special interest groups and they will make sure that there is campaign finance reform during their term. It’s almost as if they have a four-year schedule to roll out, dust off, and play the same tape over and over again. What does this mean to ACB and why should we care?
Clearly ACB has not been one of those interest groups that has anywhere near enough money to contribute anything to anybody. So from the perspective of soft money to political parties or contributions to individuals, the whole issue seems somewhat irrelevant to us. Think again.
If we are not giving the politicians the money they need to fuel their campaigns, then who is? When they receive those important contributions either directly or through their parties, then who do they thank and how do they do it? Within the last two weeks alone there was a report from a public interest group that showed a connection between all the politicians seeking the presidency and some money sources. In one case it is alleged that the quantity of natural resources available to a company supporting one of the people running for president increased threefold overnight. Coincidence or contrivance? Again, what does all this mean to us?
At the campaign contribution level, there are those people and companies who would be just as happy if our agenda were not successful as it relates to them having to do things they would rather not do. Environmental changes might prove negative to their bottom lines. Additional responsibilities would cost them money. So calling in political favors without ever making it public would be in their interests. Why then have we been as successful as we have been?
There are at least two considerations that we must remember. The first is the absolute power of reasoned and correct advocacy, and the second is the number of votes we can influence. There is no question that articulating a position which is only fair attracts support even from politicians who know the position might not make all their campaign finance supporters happy. Moreover, a publicity campaign can reach critical numbers of voters who would see non-support of the cause by a politician as unacceptable.
Oversimplified as this may be, we are left with an interesting question of soft money and hard choices. Politicians must both find the resources to run campaigns and yet make sure that they don’t sell their souls in the process and of course make even more sure that they can get enough votes to be elected. Bad enough that they have to go through this process, but they have to do it every two years in the House of Representatives, every four years for the presidency and every six years for the Senate. Small wonder, therefore, that the issue keeps coming up.
For our part, we need to understand what politicians have to face as they go through their careers and make sure our positions are well grounded and articulated along with keeping the public educated to the value of supporting our interests. We will continue to succeed as long as we stay faithful to our basic values and goals, and remember to keep in mind that soft money fuels a lot of campaigns, but many politicians have made the sometimes hard choices to stand with us in the knowledge that they are really doing the right thing.