Follow the Money (Part II)

With the informational background on campaign finance reform efforts out of the way (see Part I), we'll move on to the dynamics that impact how Members of Congress and the Parties respond when considering pending legislation.

Campaign regulation has to be viewed through the same self-survival perspective that inevitably forms the views of the Members and the Parties who consider it, namely, how to best ensure reelection and achieve and/or retain majority Party status.

For Republicans, who were largely blindsided by the depth, preparation, and the success that Democrats had in transitioning to shadow parties in the post-BCRA world, the primary objective would seem to be creating regulatory and legal conditions that make for a more level playing field between the established parties and the 527s. While 527s on the Right are influential, it is the left-leaning 527 groups that are carrying the water for Democrats, and Republicans know this. By tightly regulating and hamstringing the ability of 527 organizations to function as they have in the past, the Republicans would put themselves at a much greater advantage in upcoming election cycles. But such tight regulation runs counter to the prevailing principles of the Republican party's historic arguments in the realm of campaign finance. So, there is a tug of war between the short-term self interest and ideological consistency.

For Democrats, ideological consistency appears to have already lost a similar tug of war. In 2001, Democratic leadership and rank-and-file members fought to pass campaign finance legislation that would ban soft money from politics. At the time, Democrats relied heavily on soft money donations to operate the DNC, so such a stand was a victory for principals. Or maybe not. Almost immediately, 527 organizations headed by figures long involved in the Washington Democratic establishment sprung up and feasted on the same soft money donations recently and self-righteously decried (and banned). Now, Democrats are being forced to consider legislation that will no longer allow them to have their cake and eat it too. Though tight regulation of 527s in the spirit of BCRA tracks the ideological path of Democrats, such regulation would hugely damage their ability to compete in upcoming campaigns. Quite a conundrum. So far, self-interest has won out, as the Democrats have voted against any regulatory modifications without providing any alternative.

BCRA has enabled the proliferation of special interest 527 groups whose objectives are semi-aligned with the objectives of the Parties. The rise of the new media coincided with BCRA to allow these interests to compete with the messaging power of major Parties and Federal Candidates. The Parties should be wary, though, as these groups are accountable only to their membership and donors. In the coming age of online citizen activism, the narrower ideological focus of these groups leaves open to question whether their influence will continue to align with the broader platform positions of the Parties.