Opinion: Keeping voters in the dark

The reality about modern campaign finance laws is that they do precious little to stem the flow of special-interest money into politics, but they at least provide one aid to voters. The candidates and political parties that take the money are required to tell the public who gave them what.

Scratch that for the high-stakes Florida governor's race this year. The political parties that throw the big money around in this race were given a little breather from the strenuous exercise of disclosure. As lawmakers abolished the runoff election this year, they also eliminated the party contribution reports that are normally due at that time. That means the parties can wait until the Friday before the Nov. 5 general election, which all but assures the public will be left in the dark.

Lawmakers say the change was a mistake, but Rep. Dudley Goodlette, chairman of the House Rules, Ethics and Elections Committee, cheerfully advises that "I don't have a lot of heartburn about this."

Goodlette may not have heartburn, but voters should. This gaffe is relevant only because of a loophole lawmakers claimed they inadvertently created five years ago. That's when they changed the law to allow political parties to pay for television commercials for individual candidates -- as long as the commercials mention at least three candidates. The result has been a flood of so-called "three-pack" ads by both parties that trumpet one candidate and then, in tiny print at the end of the commercial, name three.

The three-pack exemption helps candidates evade the $500 contribution limits in their own races. The parties can accept unlimited amounts, and do, and then turn around and use the money to directly benefit the candidate. The Republican Party in Florida already has raised $26.2-million and the Democratic Party $6.7-million.

Goodlette notes that the parties will still have to report their contributions before the general election. But that's where yet another legislative loophole exists. Under current state elections law, a candidate or a political party can meet the filing deadline by mailing the report by midnight. That means a report mailed on Friday night may not arrive before the Tuesday election. This, too, promotes a common trick of hide-and-seek. A St. Petersburg mayor once mailed his final contribution report even though the office at which it was due was one floor down in the same building. It didn't show up until the Wednesday after Election Day.

The parties could build trust with voters this year simply by following the practice in previous years and disclosing their contributors at the beginning of October. As much as Gov. Jeb Bush and Bill McBride, his Democratic challenger, have sparred over the release of contributor records for the state's teachers union, they ought to agree the political parties owe voters even more.

In McBride's case, he and the teachers union need to address the question of whether the union's television ads promoting McBride in the Democratic primary -- ads that are credited with helping McBride upset Janet Reno -- were coordinated with the McBride campaign, as Republicans suspect. If they were, that would be a violation of campaign law. McBride should not want that cloud hanging over his general election campaign. If there is nothing to hide, if everything was within the law, then both McBride and the teachers union should come clean and put that issue to rest now. Otherwise, McBride risks coming off as just another politician who plays loose with campaign laws.

Both Democrats and Republicans owe voters full disclosure, not more hypocrisy.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page