Pence Promotes Free Speech for Political Parties

By sharply limiting the contributions Americans may make to traditional political parties, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law of 2002 gave disproportionate power over election-year debates to billionaires such as George Soros, who remain free to provide unlimited funds to 527 groups such as MoveOn.org. House Republican Study Committee Chairman Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has introduced legislation to establish a balance of power between 527s and political parties by promoting-not restricting-speech. He explained his proposal to HUMAN EVENTS Editor Terence P. Jeffrey.

Last year, we had 527 groups such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth on the right and MoveOn.org on the left spending millions delivering their messages and trying to affect the election. Do you think there was anything wrong, or un-American, with these groups trying to get their messages out that way?

REP. MIKE PENCE: I don't think there was anything wrong with the Summer of 527s, as it has come to be known, apart from the fact that groups on the left and right under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code spent more than $300 million to support candidates while the two major political parties and the nation's most respected labor unions, associations, businesses and constitutional groups seemed to watch in silence from the sidelines.

So, you could have a left-wing billionaire like George Soros funneling as much money as he wanted into 527s to attack conservatives and Republicans, but a Republican with equal resources could not give his money to the Republican Party to answer back?

PENCE: Both under the rules that existed before McCainFeingold and after there are severe restrictions on the ability of any American to contribute to either political party or to some of the most respected third-party organizations in America that the 527s simply don't face. What we saw was the emergence of an extraordinary loophole in the law that resulted in an unfair advantage to 527s over the nation's political parties and other organizations that have been serving the interests of Americans left, right and center for decades.

Right now, if someone wanted to get his message out, there is no limit on the contributions he could make to a 527, but if he wanted to give it to a traditional political party, he would be limited?

PENCE: That is precisely correct. You would be limited not only in the type of money you could contribute, but you could not give over a specific, set amount. Whereas, in the case of George Soros, he was able to contribute tens of millions to a 527 and to raise tens of millions from sources that to this day remain a mystery as to their ultimate origins.

Isn't it ironic that the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform tried to limit the power of extremely wealthy people to influence elections but actually made such people more powerful than traditional political parties?

PENCE: I think there is a great deal of irony in that. Much of the rhetoric surrounding McCain-Feingold was about getting the big money out of politics. Truth be told, in a certain sense they succeeded: They succeeded in getting large unregulated dollars out of the accountable environment of political parties and long-established third-party groups and into the amorphous world of the 527s.

You would like to reestablish some balance of power here?

PENCE: That is exactly right. The 527 Fairness Act is a bipartisan effort to level the playing field between 527s and political parties and third-party organizations. While some in Washington want to respond to the Summer of 527s by reining in 527s with greater government control and regulations, the 527 Fairness Act by Rep. Albert Wynn (D.-Md.) and myself takes the approach of reestablishing basic fairness by simply allowing political parties and third-party organizations to more effectively compete with the 527s in both the way that they raise and spend money.

You do not want to limit the free-speech rights of MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

PENCE: There is nothing in the 527 Fairness Act that restricts the money raising or spending activities of 527s.

What are the current restrictions on giving money to political parties, and on parties spending money, that you would like to change?

PENCE: To begin with, we think that by removing the aggregate limits on contributions to federal committees and parties we would do a great deal to level the playing field.

By "aggregate," you mean the total amount of money any individual can give to multiple federal election campaigns?

PENCE: That's exactly right. Right now, individual donors have a total aggregate limit for a two-year federal election cycle of $101,400. That's the limit on an individual's total contributions to presidential races, senatorial races, congressional races, and national, state and local parties and political action committees. But the real problem is the sublimit of $61,400 to all national party committees, which forces them to compete with each other for committed partisan donors.