FOREST - In case anyone is confused, Gov. Haley Barbour has little if any interest in tightening campaign finance rules in Mississippi.
Why should he? It would hurt his party's bread-and-butter political donors - Big Money. Big Money comes in many shapes but most often materializes in the form of large businesses and their political action committees (PACs). The most recognizable would undoubtedly be the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has stuck its nose into Mississippi politics on a frequent basis over the past few years and has not once disclosed to the dear people who live here who is financing its political activities.
Secretary of State Eric Clark, a Democrat, has set out twice now to make sure voters here know who is spending money to influence elections in the state. Last year, the Legislature passed a campaign finance reform bill that Barbour vetoed while he was hoping no one was looking. His poor excuse was that it limited donations to PACs, though that is a questionable assertion if you are to read the bill.
Nonetheless, Clark took Barbour at his word that the former Big Tobacco lobbyist was indeed interested in full disclosure of political spending - as Barbour said in his veto message last year. This year, Clark and House leaders drafted virtually the same bill that was vetoed last year but took out the language to which Barbour objected.
On the Senate side, Republican leaders spat out their version of campaign finance reform. It was a laughable piece of legislation designed quite honestly just for show.
The House bill, orchestrated by Clark, would have accomplished several things, particularly making sure that all PACs who spend money in Mississippi have to detail who gave to them. The Senate version spoke mainly to ensuring that any loan made to a politician for a political purpose must be disclosed.
The Senate bill was generally panned as weak for it made no mention of further disclosure methods in political spending. That is just how Barbour wanted it.
Clark met two weeks ago with Barbour to discuss the campaign finance reform bill. The governor said he would have his staff meet with Clark's staff to discuss the bill. That meeting never took place.
Last week, Barbour said he had not fully read the two bills but that his staff was working on the measures. Then he gave quite a hint about any chances the bill had of ever seeing the stroke of his pen, much less passage from the Legislature.
"I'm not for anything that would make the political process harder for those people who want to participate in it," Barbour said during a meeting at his Capitol office.
One must take that to mean that fully disclosing from where political donations originate is, in Barbour's opinion, a great hindrance to the political process. More correctly, it might be a great hindrance to the Republican Party, whose Big Money supporters might prefer discretion when it comes to their political activities.
All that said, it is just fine if Barbour believes the way he does. If he seeks re-election, he will answer to the voters for his stances, and they will decide how right or wrong he is.
What is not fine is that Republican legislators can't seem to make up their minds without first consulting the governor. Reportedly, during the negotiation process, when one Republican conferee showed an interest in finding common ground, it soon became time to "take a break and discuss the issue." That meant someone had to go call the governor and see what if any concessions could be made.
If Barbour were truly interested in disclosure, the House bill would have passed both houses of the Legislature without question. It was virtually the same bill as last year. The only difference is that Barbour has come up with another song and dance to protect Big Money in the political process.
