Meet a Younger Mitch McConnell as Bold Campaign Finance Reformer

| |  by

Meet a Younger Mitch McConnell as Bold Campaign Finance Reformer

By Fred Wertheimer

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the nation’s leading opponent of campaign finance laws. But it wasn’t always that way.

Today McConnell is playing true to form, attacking H.R.1, the historic democracy reform legislation sponsored by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cosponsored by 225 additional Representatives and soon to be considered by the House of Representatives. But when McConnell was younger, and some would say wiser about these issues, he had a very different view about campaign finance laws.

In 1973, in the middle of the Watergate scandals, Mitch McConnell was the Republican Party Chair for Jefferson County, Kentucky. McConnell wrote an op-ed for the Louisville Courier-Journal that discussed a local campaign finance ordinance that had been enacted by the Board of Aldermen.

In the op-ed, McConnell expressed concern about the costs of campaigns, writing, “The going price for public office has continued to escalate in recent years, further emphasizing the need for truly effective campaign finance reform.” He noted that “many qualified and ethical persons are either effectively priced out of the election market place or will not subject themselves to questionable, or downright illicit, practices that many times accompany the current electoral process.”

McConnell argued in the op-ed that the campaign finance rules in the ordinance were not strong enough, writing that it “merely applies a Band-Aid to a cancer by controlling only a portion of the many corrupt — or potentially corrupt — campaign practices involving the raising and spending of money for electioneering.”

Here, spelled out in his own words, are the campaign finance reforms supported by McConnell in his 1973 op-ed.

McConnell in Support of Public Financing of Elections

But, if the ordinance is but a Band-Aid on a cancer, so, it might be argued, is any law that maintains the private contribution system to finance public elections. More than 65 years ago it was a Republican president, “Teddy” Roosevelt, who advocated an end to the private contribution method of financing campaigns for president. An amendment providing such financing for the 1976 presidential election was attached to an extension of the debt ceiling bill in the U.S. Senate but was subsequently talked to death by a filibuster which included the first Sunday session in the Senate since 1929.

Clearly, public financing at least for presidential elections is an idea whose time has come. [Emphasis added.] Hugh Scott, the Republican leader in the Senate, is but one of the many who are now calling for publicly financed federal elections. In addition, a bill is being prepared by the Legislative Research Commission in Frankfort which would provide for partially publicly financed gubernatorial campaigns in Kentucky. I hope this matter will be given serious consideration by the 1974 General Assembly.

Now is the time to begin to reconsider the place of the private financial contribution in the political process. Might not the public be better served if a small portion of its funds were allocated to finance the Louisville and Jefferson County, as well as the state and federal, campaigns? [Emphasis added.] At least, local officials should explore the possibility before making final any local campaign practices law.

McConnell in Support of Full Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures

The ordinance requires a listing of the sources of all contributions in excess of $50 by name, address, occupation, and place of business, on a campaign statement to be filed at periodic intervals. I have previously indicated and now reiterate my support for complete disclosure of ALL donors, regardless of the size of the contributions. [Emphasis added.]

The ordinance allows a total of $200 in anonymous contributions, with any amount in excess of $200 payable to the city. The allowance of anonymous donations has no place in a disclosure ordinance. [Emphasis added.] I would strongly support altering this provision to require that all anonymous donations be paid to the city.

Once again, as with full reporting of contributions, ALL disbursements should be disclosed, regardless of size. [Emphasis added.] In addition, as with contributions, expenditures except for petty cash not to exceed $25 should be made by check.

McConnell in Support of Spending Limits

The ordinance, as passed, is also sorely lacking in two major areas:

(1) It sets no overall limitation or ceiling on campaign spending, and
(2) It requires no personal financial disclosure.

With regard to a spending limitation, past events have shown how close we are to a “bought” nation, state and city. Only six months ago, the cost of the Louisville-Jefferson County Democratic primary alone exceeded $400,000. The lack of an overall limit on spending is an open invitation for special interests to circumvent this ordinance and lavishly finance future candidates, regardless of the limitations on amounts of individual contributions.” [Emphasis added.]

McConnell in Support of Contribution Limits

The ordinance limits a candidate to giving no more than $2,500 to his own campaign in a single election. For the office of mayor, I heartily endorse this limitation, but, for the aldermanic positions and Police Court judge and prosecutor, it is too high. While $2,500 would hardly finance a mayoral campaign, it might well buy an aldermanic or Police Court primary. I would suggest a $300 limit on the amount a candidate for alderman, police judge, or Police Court prosecutor might spend in his own behalf. [Emphasis added.]

Contributions from persons other than the candidate himself in any single election are limited to $250. This limitation should be consistent with the limitations on the candidates themselves, $2,500 for mayor and $300 for the other city positions.

McConnell in Support of Effective Enforcement

The ordinance establishes an “Enforcement Authority” to insure compliance. However, the authority is not defined. The time to define an enforcing mechanism is now. Without effective enforcement, the ordinance, no matter how noble its intention, could become a farce. [Emphasis added.]

So to sum up, as Jefferson Country Republican party Chairman in 1973, Mitch McConnell supported public financing for presidential elections, exploring public financing for local races, full disclosure of contributions and expenditures, campaign spending limits, contribution limits and effective enforcement of campaign finance rules.

McConnell also stated that it was time “to begin to reconsider the place of the private financial contribution in the political process.”

Interestingly, McConnell raised no constitutional concerns in his op-ed about any of the campaign finance reforms he supported. Today, McConnell makes constitutional attacks on campaign finance reforms, even when the Supreme Court has already rejected his arguments.

Senator McConnell’s Proposed 1987 Constitutional Amendment That Would Have Prevented Citizens United

In 1987, then-Senator McConnell proposed a constitutional amendment that included a provision declaring “that the Congress may enact laws regulating the amounts of independent expenditures by any person, other than by a political committee of a political party, which can be made to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.”

If Senator McConnell’s Amendment had been successful, he would have:

  • Prevented the Citizens United decision;
  • Prevented independent expenditures by corporations;
  • Thwarted the creation of Super PACs based on the Citizens United decision – these PACs have raised nearly $5 billion in unlimited contributions during the last four elections; and
  • Prevented secret contributions from being spent through nonprofit groups to influence federal elections – more than $800 million in dark money contributions were spent during the last four elections to influence federal elections.

The campaign reform agenda of the younger McConnell is music to the ears of all of us working today to reform the nation’s corrupt campaign finance system. People say that wisdom comes with age, but that does not appear to be the case here.

###