Denver Post

NO: Amendment 27 not the solution
By Rob Witwer

Sunday, September 29, 2002 - The leaders of the state's Democratic and Republican parties don't agree very often. In fact, it happens about as frequently as a Bigfoot sighting on the 16th Street Mall.

However, when it comes to Amendment 27 - a campaign-finance reform initiative sponsored by a Washington, D.C.-based group - Coloradans from diverse political viewpoints are coming together to express concern. They understand that Amendment 27 isn't really "reform" at all: It's a constitutional wolf in sheep's clothing.

But don't take somebody else's word for it: Visit the secretary of state's website (www.sos.state.co.us) and read Amendment 27 for yourself. Skip the preamble and dig into the 4,500 new words this initiative would add to your constitution. What you will find is a collection of exceptions, exemptions and loopholes that promise to transform political fundraising into a complex game in which the biggest winners are wealthy candidates, incumbents, special-interest groups and lawyers. Unfortunately, the biggest losers are some of the most vital parts of our democracy: grassroots activism, public accountability, citizen candidates and the First Amendment.

At its heart, Amendment 27 places unrealistically low limits on the amount of money that candidates can raise from donors to communicate with voters. By contrast, the proposal's "millionaire loophole" allows a candidate with deep pockets to pour unlimited personal resources into his or her own campaign.

Money talks in politics, and by reducing the voices of ordinary candidates to a whisper while allowing their affluent opponents to shout, Amendment 27 creates an unprecedented advantage for wealthy contenders. Imagine, for example, a state Senate general election race in which one candidate spends $500,000 of his own money on his campaign. Even under Amendment 27's "anti-millionaire" provisions, his less affluent opponent would still need to raise the maximum allowable donation of $400 from 1,250 separate, individual donors just to break even. That's hardly a level playing field.

Amendment 27's fundraising limits also stack the deck in favor of incumbents, who typically enjoy a higher public profile than challengers. History bears this out. In 1996, Colorado adopted Amendment 15, a campaign finance reform initiative with fundraising limits that were virtually identical to those in Amendment 27. Although a federal court later threw out portions of Amendment 15 as unconstitutional, it was in force during the 1998 election cycle. And in that year, every single incumbent seeking re-election to the state House and Senate won.

But by far the most deceptive feature of Amendment 27 is its labyrinth of loopholes that allow special- interest groups to funnel invisible money into political campaigns. Like water, political money seeks the path of least resistance. Under current law, that path is through direct contributions to candidates and political parties, which must be disclosed to voters. Under Amendment 27's unrealistically low limits, however, the path of least resistance runs through several loopholes, some of which allow (and, indeed, encourage) specia- interest groups to conceal their activities from the public.

One loophole allows special interests to completely evade public-disclosure requirements by establishing a "newspaper, magazine or periodical" to convey their political messages. Another loophole allows "membership organizations" (which are not defined in the law) to carry on covert political activities without informing the public about their funding sources. Yet another loophole creates a special type of political action committee that is allowed to make contributions 10 times larger than the amount permitted for individuals or other political action committees.

These legal end-runs - and several others like them - demonstrate that the architects of Amendment 27 failed to give sufficient weight to one very important factor: human nature. When the very language of a law provides a roadmap showing people how to get around the rules, it should come as no surprise when they do just that. With its bevy of loopholes, Amendment 27 would not prevent special-interest groups from trying to influence our elected officials; rather, it ensures that we'd be less likely to know about it when they do.

To be fair, real campaign finance reform - the kind that respects First Amendment free speech while increasing citizens' access to information - is a good idea. Unfortunately, Amendment 27 takes us in the opposite direction. If passed, it would muzzle all but the wealthiest of candidates while driving special-interest money underground. Voters would have even less information about candidates and political fundraising than they do now. Worse yet, because Amendment 27 is a constitutional amendment, we would have very little flexibility to close loopholes and fix problems that arise in the future.

In other words, despite the claims made by its backers, Amendment 27 would make big-money interests less accountable - and more influential - than ever before.

And they call this reform?