"We can overcome the power of big money to corrupt our political system and the government it elects. At the rate of spending in 1996 and 1998, the people can buy their country back from big contributors for half the price of one movie ticket, per year, per person.
It will be possible for a president to arrest our slide from democracy to plutocracy only if he can free himself from fund-raising, disregard the polling, spedn his popularity and mold opinion rather than follow it."
While his praise of the "historic mission of the Democratic Party" is dubious, he comes close to a clear class analysis of the way bourgeois democracy is run.
Opinion polls show him not taken seriously, but are there any finance reform activists gathered around him, and influencing the agenda of candidates who might be successful?
The below suggests the issue is still alive.
Chris Burford
London
Senate to take up softened campaign finance reform
By Jonathan Karl/CNN
October 12, 1999
Web posted at: 6:01 p.m. EDT (2201 GMT)
WASHINGTON -- Democrat Russ Feingold of
Wisconsin and Republican John McCain of Arizona
want to change the entire campaign finance system,
but this week the two senators will fight for a more
modest goal -- a ban on so-called "soft money."
"Let's move forward to try to address the most
egregious and outrageous corrupting aspect of
campaigns in America today and that is the incredible
inundation of soft money and its pernicious effects,"
McCain said Tuesday.
Soft money is the cash
given directly to the
national parties and not
subject to the federal
limits places on
individual campaigns.
The House already has
passed a comprehensive campaign finance bill, but
last year a Senate version of that bill fell eight votes
short of the 60 votes needed to break Kentucky
Republican Mitch McConnell's filibuster.
"We couldn't break the filibuster without making
some changes, we have to break the filibuster so we
can at least have the House and the Senate both have
a bill," Feingold explained.
But by limiting the scope of their bill, McCain and
Feingold risk losing Democratic support.
"Scaling back the campaign finance reform bill may
get more Republicans aboard, but it leaves many of
us who have been involved in the reform movement
for years in believing that we are doing something
and accomplishing nothing," Sen. Robert Torricelli
(D-New Jersey) warned.
Democrats may have reason to be leery about a
soft-money ban.
"In the '98 cycle the Democrats raised 50 percent of
all their money through soft money. We only raised
40 percent of our money through soft money," Rep.
Asa Hutchinson (R-Arkansas) said.
During the first half of 1999, Democrats have raised
more than $26 million in soft money -- nearly double
the amount raised during the same period two years
ago.
The top Democratic soft money donors include the
Communications Workers of America, which gave
$525,000; The American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees, $435,000; and
AT&T, $305,200.
The Republican's top soft money donors are AT&T,
$525,800; Philip Morris, $375,461; and the
National Rifle Association, $244,000.
Democrats are now raising almost as much soft
money as Republicans, but Republicans have a
nearly two to one advantage in the so-called "hard
money" given directly to candidates for campaigns.
"It would be very bad for both political parties and
would largely turn the political discussion over to
others," McConnell told CNN Tuesday, restating his
opposition to the bill.
This week, the Senate is expected to debate a series
of amendments some to further tighten campaign
finance regulations, others to actually loosen the
rules. But Republican opponents have made it clear
they will filibuster against any bill that bans soft
money.