Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Thursday, June 29, 2000Encouraging progress
on campaign reformAFTER voting down a similar proposal two weeks ago, the House has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would require certain groups active in political campaigns to disclose the names of contributors. The Senate, which had passed a bill closely resembling the House measure, quickly approved the House version and sent it to the White House. This is the first significant campaign reform in a quarter of a century.The issue: The House has passed a bill that would require disclosure of contributors to certain groups active in political campaigns.
The prospective law falls far short of the most sweeping demands of proponents of campaign reform. It has nothing to do with limiting campaign contributions or spending.
But it closes a loophole that has permitted contributors to certain tax-exempt, nonprofit groups that sponsor campaign messages to remain unknown to the public. This is a welcome step toward greater openness in the election campaign process.
The groups affected organize under section 527 of the tax code, which allows nonprofit groups to run campaign-style messages as long as they don't directly advocate the election or defeat of any candidates. They can accept unlimited amounts of money from unidentified contributors and spend it on political activities.
Organizations across the political spectrum, from the Sierra Club to the Christian Coalition, have organized 527s. However, they have been increasingly used by congressional leaders to amass large contributions.
The legislation covers any 527 group that raises at least $25,000 a year. It would require those that do not already report to the Federal Election Commission to report to the Internal Revenue Service, which would make the reports public.
The groups affected are not required to report to the election commission because they claim to be involved in issues, not politics. Other nonprofits also avoid disclosure with the FEC by claiming to be involved in issues, although they too spend large sums on TV ads that attempt to influence elections. However, the other groups are limited in how much political activity they can conduct without losing their nonprofit tax status, and they must release their tax returns.
It would be preferable to require disclosure of contributors to all campaign groups, but even this more modest step is important.
One of the most ardent champions of campaign reform in Congress, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has a personal reason to support this particular proposal. Using a 527, a pair of Texas brothers ran $2.5 million in ads praising Texas Gov. George W. Bush and attacking McCain in the days before a crucial GOP primary election.
Proposals to limit contributions to politically active groups that are independent of candidates' campaigns could run afoul of the constitutional guarantee of free speech. But disclosure requirements should not encounter that problem. And it seems entirely reasonable to require that the public be informed who is paying for political messages, whether or not they explicitly endorse candidates.
Partial-birth abortion
ABORTION rights have gained an important affirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court but by the narrowest of margins. The high court's 5-4 vote overturned the most extreme state ban on a procedure that abortion opponents find most objectionable. The issue -- certain to be used in the presidential campaign -- should not detract from the continued support for basic abortion rights granted in the 1973 decision of Roe vs. Wade.
Thirty states -- Hawaii is not among them -- have banned "partial-birth abortion," which abortion opponents call the rarely used procedure known to doctors as dilation and extraction, or D&E. It involves removal of the fetus through the birth canal after the doctor collapses the skull by suctioning out its contents.
Nebraska's law was unusual in two respects. First, its language was so broad that it could be interpreted to also ban a different method of abortion in which a pre-viable fetus is dismembered as the doctor extracts it from the womb. The method, called dilation and evacuation, is commonly used to end pregnancies in the second trimester. Second, unlike most state bans of partial-birth abortion, the Nebraska law did not contain an exception for the woman's health.
Defenders of the Nebraska ban denied that it applied to dilation and evacuation, or D&X, but the justices disagreed. "All those who perform abortion procedures using that method (D&X) must fear prosecution, conviction and imprisonment," Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court's majority. "The result is an undue burden upon a woman's right to make an abortion decision."
The issue already has surfaced in the presidential campaign. Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the presumptive Republican nominee, has declared his support for bans on partial-birth abortions while Democratic Vice President Al Gore opposes such bans. President Clinton already has vetoed two bills containing a federal ban, and the Republican-led Congress is preparing a third attempt. Clinton said the next president is likely to replace two to four Supreme Court justices.
The danger is that opponents of Roe vs. Wade will continue to focus on what they can graphically depict as a grisly procedure to generate opposition to abortion rights generally. The pros and cons of abortion rights cannot be fairly condensed in a debate over partial-birth abortion.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
