approach justifies its consummation.rnDisgust with the special-interest poHticsrnengendered by the 1974 bill promptedrnCongress to promise that a few hundredrnmillion more tax dollars will cleanse therncorruptive influence of private sectorrnmoney from elections. Of course, publicrnfinancing also places the purse strings ofrnelection financing in its own capablernhands.rnTax money will finance qualifyingrnHouse candidates with matching fundsrn(equaling the first $200 of individualrncontributions) and House and Senaternraces with postal subsidies and vouchersrnfor television air time. Spending limitsrnare set at $600,000 for House races andrnfrom $950,000 to $5.5 million for Senaternraces. The theoretically voluntaryrnspending limits are expected to pass constitutionalrnmuster this time around, butrncandidates whose opponents exceed thernlimits receive lavish direct federal aid.rnThe House is now as enthusiastic to userntax money for campaigning as was thernSenate’s biggest public financing proponent,rnTed Kennedy, back in 1974, whenrnhe contended that public financingrncould “end the corrosive and corruptiverninfluence of private money in publicrnlife.”rnThe same animus suffused the halls ofrnCongress again when S.3 was debatedrnlast year. Public financing combinedrnwith spending limits was preached byrnsupporters of last year’s campaign financernbill as the way to “end the moneyrnchase.” This is perplexing because incumbentsrndon’t need to engage in arn”money chase.” Many incumbents beginrncampaign season with a war chestrnleft over from the previous election thatrnexceeds the entire amount most challengersrnwill raise. This not only scares offrnprospective challengers, but also, whenrnthe going gets tough for incumbents (asrnwith the 1992 elections), enables themrnto battle their opponents with buckets ofrnmoney. In 1992, 36 incumbents spentrnover one million dollars apiece—sixrntimes the number of seven-figurernspenders in 1990. This includes manyrneminent advocates of the $600,000rnspending limits in the House portion ofrnlast year’s campaign finance reform bill.rnAmong these are Democratic RepresentativesrnSteny Hoyer and Martin Frostrn($1.5 million each) and David Boniorrn($1.3 million). Indeed, the House sponsorrnof the campaign “reform” bill, SamrnGejdenson, spent nearly a million. Andrnit is not as though they were backedrnagainst the wall by big-spending challengers.rnTheir opponents all spent lessrnthan 20 percent of the money they did.rnPublic financing will give incumbentsrnthe kind of security they now enjoy withoutrnthe distasteful indignity of grubbingrnfor money from special interests. Itrnwould also make them nearly as insulatedrnfrom the special interests as they nowrnare from the average voter. Congressionallyrnwritten campaign laws have historicallyrncultivated private moneyrnsources favorable to incumbents. Publicrnfinancing will force taxpayers to spendrnmillions on the election campaigns ofrnevery qualifying candidate, while increasingrnelected officials’ control of thernmoney. Having incumbents write campaignrnlaws is certainly a conflict of interest.rnWhile public money eases campaigningrnchores for incumbents, spending limitsrnwill chasten ambitious challengers.rnChallengers need to raise a thresholdrnamount (at least $200,000) before evenrngaining credibility and name recognition.rnIncumbents begin with both. Givenrnthat incumbents start the race with arnhealthy lead, the reform bill’s spendingrnlimits could prevent challengers fromrnmounting the kind of campaign neededrnto overcome it.rnMoreover, incumbent congressmenrnalready have enormous taxpayer-fundedrnresources at their disposal. Amazingly,rnthe spending restrictions in the newrnreform proposals overlook all of these.rnFor example, though ostensibly not forrncampaign purposes, the flood of frankedrnmail peaks directly prior to elections, asrnnear as the law allows. In 1990, thernHouse exceeded its $44 million-dollarrnfranked mail budget by some $31 million.rnThe House appropriated a whoppingrn$80 million for its postage costs forrn1992, plus another $32 million for thernSenate’s. Former Senator Pete Wilson,rnwho called the extensive use of the frankingrnprivilege a “clear case of abuse,” estimatedrnthat the 800 million pieces ofrnmail Congress sent out in 1988 weighedrnas much as 746 Greyhound buses. Onlyrnabout 8 percent of this is in direct responsernto constituent inquiries. Taxpayersrnalso pay for an incumbent’s full-timernstaff and office in his home district, arntelevision studio on Capitol Hill, travel,rnand hundreds of other things. Incumbentsrnenjoy lavish free media coverage,rnand few others can keep receiving theirrnpaychecks while running a full-timerncampaign.rnOf course, the complex fundingrnscheme is fraught with loopholes, such asrnexemptions on fundraising limits for administrativernexpenses or costs incurred inrncomplying with the bill’s complex bookkeepingrnand legal burdens. And, ofrncourse, those who wrote the rules willrnbest know how to exploit the loopholes.rnThe burden of complying with all thernadministrative minutiae will detractrnfrom legitimate political activities,rnparticularly for political novices. Andrnenforcement will run from spotty tornnonexistent (the Federal Election Commission,rnwhich now only enforces spendingrnlimits on the presidential race, wasrnstill cleaning up accounts from the 1988rnpresidential campaign in mid-1992)rnor else the election bureaucracy will havernto be vastly expanded to cover thernapproximately 1,000 more races everyrnfour years. The bottom line: the newrncampaign finance bill will mean morerntax dollars, more government control,rnand inevitably, less competitive elections.rnThe other election reform bill, alreadyrnpassed by the House and Senate, is thern”motor-voter” bill. The bill requiresrnstates to: one, register as voters those renewingrnor applying for a driver’s license;rntwo, allow voter registration by mail; and,rnthree, open registration sites at publicrnassistance agencies and at military recruitmentrnoffices. In typical fashion,rnthese mandates to the states are notrnfunded. States struggling with their ownrndeficits will have to expend scarce fundsrnto meet the new federal dictates and tornkeep a lid on the voting fraud that thernnew processes will encourage. It is almostrnimpossible to prevent fraud withrnmail-in registration, while the driver’s licensernregistration would have insuredrnthe gentleman who detonated a rentalrntruck under the World Trade Center ofrnhis right to vote. States are not allowedrnto require proof of citizenship of registrants.rnThe Congressional Budget Officern(CBO) has estimated that the bill willrncost the federal government about $4.5rnmillion each year. However, it will costrneach state an average of $20 to $25 millionrnper year for the first five years, plus arnpossible one-time cost of $60 to $70 millionrnto computerize registration lists.rnThe states could also be made liable forrnlawsuits resulting from state violationsrnof the bill’s provisions.rnBoth the motor-voter bill and the newrncampaign finance reforms calcify the po-rn48/CHRON1CLE5rnrnrn