12 STEPS TO RECOVERY

By WAYNE BERMAN

Hello, my name is Wayne, and I'm a political fund raiser. So I have some confessions to make. For almost 20 years I've been raising money for Republican candidates. And despite all the scandals, congressional investigations and independent counsels, I believe fund raising is a legitimate part of our political system. To raise money, a candidate needs a mixture of charm, inspiration and persuasion--qualities also essential to success when candidates become officeholders.

I also confess that our fund-raising system is broken. Congressmen, candidates and Presidents all spend too many hours each day dialing for dollars--and not plotting the nation's future. And, increasingly, the hunt has taken the Clinton White House into dangerous territory--namely, other countries. Indeed, since 1994, both parties went overseas to find soft money because they were tapped out at home.

So, what do we do about it? Reformers like Common Cause call for drastic changes, such as free TV time for candidates who agree to limit their spending and public financing of campaigns. These are good ideas, if you are willing to gut the Bill of Rights and make the First Amendment read, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech except in the case of political participation."

There is a better way, a 12-step program for fixing our method of paying for elections. It's not perfect, but it's a start:

1 Require instant electronic reporting of all donations. We need this the most, and it would cost almost nothing. The best way to clean up the campaign-finance mess is to bring it all into the sunlight, instantly. Currently, campaigns must file quarterly with the Federal Election Commission. We might as well be using the telegraph in the age of E-mail. Instead each candidate should report every contribution to the FEC daily--and the FEC should be required to make it all available instantly via the Internet.

2 Remove all Senate-confirmed appointees, including Cabinet officers, from any fund-raising activities. All recent Presidents sent top Cabinet officers and officials to raise money in their name. Administration appointees are currently faced with the impossible situation of carrying out policy while at the same time providing care and comfort to party donors.

3 Report "donor servicing." In a new twist last year, the Clinton-Gore campaign invited donors to the White House, onto Air Force One and into other sacred public spaces for coffee. It wasn't what their lawyers called "fund raising"; they called it "donor servicing." Hence we need instant disclosure of all meetings between donors and public officials. Reports must be sent to the FEC in a timely manner. Critics will say this measure will impede the business of government in America. My rejoinder: not legitimate business.

4 Forbid congressional fund raising while Congress is in session. In the old days, fund raising was done in one's district on vacations; now it's done in Washington between votes on highway bills. The House and Senate should adopt new rules: No member of the House or Senate may hold, participate in or attend political fund-raising activities while his or her branch of Congress is open for business. Here's my favorite part: if Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich bring it to a vote, no one will vote against it.

5 Ban foreign-born, foreign-raised or foreign-fed soft money. Only people who can vote in our elections should be able to give money to our candidates.

6 Ban political-action committees. PACs, which bundle money from people of similar special interests, engender candidates with narrow agendas that contribute to legislative gridlock. We should just get rid of PACs altogether. It will heal a lot of electoral ulcers and still permit individuals who care about issues to contribute on their own.

7 Labor unions must let members decide whether to play politics. (Note to Democrats: if this one makes you mad, you'll be pleased to know that you'll be the chief beneficiaries of No. 9, so stay tuned.) In 1996 the unions spent tens of millions of dollars on an independent-expenditure campaign against Republicans--even though as many as 40% of union members vote for Republicans. (Full disclosure: I was on the losing end of that one.) I would suggest requiring labor unions, or any such dues-collecting entities, to give members the option of whether to use their dues for political purposes.

8 Increase the limit on hard-money contributions in federal races to $5,000. It sounds loony, but Gingrich is right when he says there isn't enough money in campaigns. The question is what kind of money. I propose raising the limit from $1,000 to $5,000 a person each election. A more stringent cap was necessary in 1974, when the limit was set, given the slow reporting process of the day. New technology allows for freer, faster information exchange and would justify easing up on the caps, provided that disclosure was immediate. The $1,000 cap has not been adjusted for inflation and is seriously outdated. A higher cap would also increase the role of individuals in a game rigged for groups.

9 Eliminate the $25,000 federal yearly giving limit. Notwithstanding the conduct of the present Administration, the real truth about political money is that it generally buys nothing. Political money doesn't confer power on the giver; it confers it on the recipient. We should allow individuals to contribute, within the law, to as many campaigns as they want. (Note to Democrats: this helps you, as Democrats get substantially more large individual contributions than Republicans.)

10 Leave TV time alone. No mandates. It is good for campaigns to have to purchase television time because it means their message has received some degree of validation from financial supporters. The government must not tax TV-station owners to pay for elections. Democracy will march on without the aid of a few free political infomercials.

11 Eliminate the mystery players of politics. Require secretly funded independent expenditure campaigns, which increasingly run massive ads against members of both parties, to disclose to the FEC the sources of their contributions.

12 Signal to multimillionaires that they cannot buy seats in Congress. The right of a candidate to spend his own money is constitutionally protected. However, this gives wealthy candidates a tremendous advantage. The answer, to avoid injury to the Constitution, is not to limit the amount someone can spend on his own campaign but to offset it. If a candidate provides 15% or more of his campaign war chest, the opponent's party should be allowed to match that amount through a soft-money contribution.

Of course, as long as the current rules are in place, I'll still play by them. And until there is a better alternative, so will every other fund raiser--and politician.