FOREST - Political money realities are about to collide as the Legislature begins debate over a campaign finance reform bill.
Gov. Haley Barbour last year vetoed a bill backed by Secretary of State Eric Clark, who has been a vocal proponent of further regulation and transparency of campaign spending in the realm of political donations.
At the heart of the matter is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become a welcome participant in Mississippi politics by conservative judges and Republican candidates. The pro-business group, which is currently waging a nationwide tort reform push, has spent millions of dollars trying to influence judicial and statewide races.
Sen. Charlie Ross, R-Brandon, believes tying the Chamber's hands is the goal of House Democrats who are putting "drill back" language in the bill.
"They don't like the Chamber of Commerce involved in politics," said Ross. "Everyone knows who the Chamber is. They have a Web site. They have to disclose who their contributors are."
But what concerns Clark, lawmakers and some businesses and political organizations located in the state is that the chamber is not disclosing to Mississippi who has backed their political agenda. The "drill back" language, as Clark calls it, would force political action committees (PACs) and non-profit corporations such as the Chamber of Commerce to not only divulge who has donated money to them but also to divulge donors to any PAC which donated money to them.
Sound complicated? Possibly, and Republicans want it to sound that way. But the truth is that if PACs are following the law in other states, divulging who is giving them money would not be a problem. If the U.S. Chamber, for instance, is dead set on running "issue ads," which are a joke within themselves, then all they have to do is tell the state of Mississippi and all her people who is financing their efforts. And if they want to donate money to a campaign here in Mississippi, all they have to do is disclose to said campaign who gave them money so that said campaign can disclose it to the State of Mississippi and all of her people. It's that simple.
But here's the rub: This debate centers on a political money fight between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans were successful in drying up the top moneymen of the Democratic Party when they put stringent caps on medical malpractice cases. With tort reform, the trial lawyer lobby was neutralized in political spending.
Now Republicans are trying to protect their political bread-and-butter, pro-businesses groups that have the ability to divert millions of dollars into the state without ever having to list a single individual donor. And while the campaign finance reform bill will not lessen the amount of money organizations like the U.S. Chamber can give, Republicans fear it will make the system too complicated and therefore will discourage participation.
Ross said as much, but he is not worried about large political campaigns, he said. His fear comes in making it too complicated for legislative races and local races that would fall under these same rules and regulations.
"I think we should err on the side of participation and not discouraging participation in the political process," Ross said, who opposes "drill back" language.
So here two political realities now collide, but Republicans will once again have a hard time selling their side. How can they defend allowing an outside organization spending millions of dollars to influence political campaigns in Mississippi without knowing from whom the money came? It's an absurd logic.
Barbour must have thought so as well, because his veto last year did not mention it. His veto mentioned only language that would have limited corporate donations to PACs to the same proposed limit of $2,000 made by corporations to political candidates or political parties. This year's House bill does not limit corporate donations to PACs.
We'll see if Senate Republicans and Barbour agree based on whether the bill makes it to the governor's desk and if he signs it.
