DATE: Wednesday, April 30, 1997             TAG: 9704300011

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   47 lines

AN UNJUST RULING

For years, Common Cause has waged a lonely crusade against campaign corruption. Now, in the aftermath of the 1996 presidential race, its time may have come.

It notes that both the Dole and Clinton campaigns openly, blatantly and massively violated the law regarding soft money. There are supposed to be strict limits on how much PACs, organizations and individuals can contribute to candidates. Soft money, donated for party-building activities and issues advocacy, is not restricted.

But soft money may not be used to advance the fortunes of a specific candidate. This stricture is regularly ignored, according to Common Cause. It has chapter and verse to prove it.

Last week, the group called on the Justice Department to reverse an earlier ruling that ludicrously classified as soft money millions that were ``raised and spent, and fully controlled, by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Dole presidential campaign.''

By pretending money spent to promote the candidates was actually party-building soft money, the campaigns had their cake and ate it too. They accepted federal campaign funds without being forced to adhere to federal spending limits. The disputed Justice ruling lets them get away with it.

Yet Common Cause makes a persuasive, indeed, an ironclad case that ``the Dole campaign used the RNC as a conduit to run an ad campaign'' for the candidate, thereby illegally spending $9 million in soft money in the second quarter of 1996. The Clinton campaign, through the DNC, did the same thing in the year preceding June 30, 1996, to the tune of $22 million in illegally diverted soft money.

Common Cause isn't alone in believing such flouting of the law by presidential campaigns is bad for democracy, shaming for the candidates and an affront to the rule of law.

Former Deputy Attorney General Philip Heymann says the ``Justice Department's interpretation of the Campaign Act is not only legally wrong but also disastrous as a matter of policy. It means that there are no limits on how much influence and access private parties, corporations, labor unions and foreign nationals can buy with campaign contributions.''

That wasn't the intent of the law. The Justice Department needs to re-examine its ruling, and the Federal Election commission needs to hold the campaigns accountable. This country shouldn't be run by the best government money can buy, but that's the unfortunate reality as demonstrated by Common Cause.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu