http://themilitant.com/2017/8119/811953.html
The Militant (logo)
Vol. 81/No. 19 May 15, 2017
The fraud of capitalist ‘electoral reform’ laws
On April 20 the Federal Election Commission denied an extension for
the exemption the Socialist Workers Party has had for over 35 years from
filing the names of contributors to its election campaigns. The
following excerpts from an April 5, 1974, article from the Militant by
Larry Seigle discuss the decision of the U.S. capitalist rulers to
promote “campaign reforms” — like disclosure — in an effort to regain
weakening support for bourgeois politics at the time.
Going into the 1970s, demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, for
Black rights, for women’s right to choose abortion and other social
protests and union battles were spurring growing distrust in capitalist
rule and its two parties, the Democrats and Republicans.
The widespread outrage at what became known as the Watergate burglary,
organized by the reelection campaign of President Richard Nixon led to
his resignation in 1974.
The Socialist Workers Party seized the opportunity in 1973 to launch a
far-reaching political campaign, including legal action, against
government spying and disruption against the SWP and Young Socialist
Alliance by the FBI and other government agencies.
The rulers sought to deflect popular attention from the revelations of
the workings of the capitalist system by adopting a series of “campaign
reforms.” One of their first moves was the 1971 Federal Election
Campaign Act, which ordered political campaign committees to report the
names of their contributors. This was ballyhooed as a tool to establish
“transparency” in elections.
This effort was promoted by Common Cause, a liberal outfit that promoted
disclosure. They led a national effort to prevent the SWP from winning
exemption precisely when the party’s campaign was forcing out increasing
evidence of government spying and harassment of the party.
Future issues of the Militant will cover how the SWP won this fight and
the stakes for the working class.
❖
BY LARRY SEIGLE
A grand fraud is being cooked up in Congress. The master chefs are the
leaders of both capitalist parties, and they are advertising the recipe
as “The Answer to Watergate.”
The dish? Reform of campaign financing, including tougher reporting
laws, new restrictions on raising and spending funds, and some form of
public financing.
The promoters are ecstatic. “At a single stroke,” promises senator
Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), “we can drive the money-lenders out of the
temple of politics. We can end the corrosive and corrupting influence of
private money in public life.”
Unfortunately there is no Truth-in-Packaging-Law that applies to the
fast-sell doubletalk of politicians promoting new legislation. If there
were, the proposals being talked about so glibly by Kennedy and his
colleagues would be required to bear a notice: “‘Reform’ value — nil.
And watch out! This bill is hazardous to your political rights….”
Stiffer reporting requirements
One who still believes that the politicians are, under public pressure,
trying to clean up politics might say at this point, “Okay, the public
financing proposal is unfair. But surely some progress will come from
forcing public disclosure of campaign contributions, won’t it?”
No it won’t. Moreover, the disclosure provisions will hurt smaller
parties even more than the unfair public financing.
Let’s take one example. Under this law, the Socialist Workers Party has
had to report to the government the name, address and workplace of all
contributors of more than $100 to SWP election campaigns. At the same
time, the government claims that because the SWP is “subversive,” anyone
who is “affiliated” to the SWP is fair target for FBI surveillance and
harassment. And “subversives” can be fired from government employment
and many private companies with government contracts or their own
version of the blacklist.
Thus, anyone who contributes has got to be ready to accept this harassment.
“But,” our friend might argue, “the law applies equally to everyone.”
That’s the catch. There is no “equality.” Contributing to the democrats
and the republicans is not going to lose anyone a job, or get a file
opened by any of the multitude of snooping agencies in Washington. But
donating money to the SWP, or the Communist Party, or the People’s Party
or the Raza Unida Party may very well.
“Cleaning up politics”
And as for “cleaning up” politics through forcing disclosure, this is
the biggest fraud of all. As experience has shown, the only result of
tightening controls on campaign financing is to drive the corruption
further underground, not to end it.
Illicit financial deals are diverted to more indirect routes. Money is
“laundered” through Mexican banks or foreign subsidiaries of U.S.
corporations. If limits are put on contributions, big donors simply
break them down and have 10, 50 or 100 “friends” make the gifts.
Illegal? Of course. But equally uncontrollable. And after all, the
administrators of the law are the very same politicians and parties who
are supposedly being controlled.
More important. No amount of “campaign reform” is going to change the
fact that the capitalist parties serve the interests of the capitalist
class and do its bidding, The class loyalties of the Democratic and
Republican politicians can’t be “reformed.”
An additional unfair burden falling on the smaller parties is the
monumental job of bookkeeping and paperwork that compliance with the new
law requires. This is no problem for the capitalist parties, who have
teams of lawyers and accountants at their disposal. But complying with
the law is a huge task for smaller parties.
However, all the existing inequalities pale by comparison to what may
happen in the future. The likelihood is that the Democrats and
Republicans will soon be getting public financing, bringing an end to
their private fundraising. This means that the reporting provisions may
soon apply only to opponents of the two capitalist parties.
Are these considerations merely accidental side effects that the
“reformers” in congress didn’t foresee? I don’t think so. I think the
capitalist parties have been taking advantage of the widespread
revulsion at the corruption revealed by Watergate to sneak through some
additional obstacles to independent political action.
While posing as crusading opponents of corruption to strengthen their
public image, these shysters are reinforcing the most corrupt aspect of
U.S. politics — the virtual stranglehold maintained by the two
capitalist parties.
The fake reform bills now on the books, and the new ones likely to be
passed, should be exposed and opposed by all those who believe in
freedom of political expression and choice, and especially by those who
support parties directly hurt by the new legislation.
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home