Roll Call
November 20, 1997

RIGHT TO KNOW
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

by Becky Cain, President
the League of Women Voters

To the Editor:

This year, the National Right to Life Committee has waged a scorched-earth campaign against campaign finance reform legislation and its supporters in congress. Most recently, Roll Call reported that the NRLC is running radio ads blasting supporters of reform in their districts ("Speaker Pledges Vote on Campaign Reform Next Year, But Not Soon Enough to Suit Some," Nov. 6). The ads are wildly inaccurate, if not deliberately disingenuous. Doug Johnson, an NRLC spokesman, threatened the same treatment for any Member of Congress who dared support the Blue Dogs' discharge petition, a procedural move that would simply allow votes on a range of reform measures introduced by both Republican and Democrats.

Why is the National Right to Life Committee so vigorously opposed to even the opportunity to hold fair votes on campaign reform legislation? Recent media revelation about the NRLC's funding sources may help answer that question.

On Oct. 23, it was reported that the Republican National Committee gave the NRLC, which was actively involved in the 1996 campaign, $650,000 in the waning days of that campaign. And the deputy finance director of the RNC solicited and served as conduit for another $1000,000 contribution to the NRLC from a wealthy businessman around the same time.

By having political parties solicit and funnel big donations to groups like the NRLC, contributors can avoid the sunshine laws that require public disclosure for contributions to parties. Since the NRLC maintains it has the right to use unlimited, undisclosed sums in the election process, what other contributions and activities will we learn of as the current funding scandal unfolds?

Most campaign finance reform legislation would ban the political parties from raising soft money, outlawing the type of unlimited donations from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals that the RNC gave to the NRLC immediately preceding last year's elections. Parties would also be prohibited from serving as conduits for big soft-money contributions to groups like the NRLC.

So, it turns out, in 1996 alone the NRLC has at least 750,000 good reasons to oppose campaign finance reform. Maybe that's why it's afraid to let legislators, Republicans or Democrats, vote on campaign finance legislation. As Paul Harvey might say, now we know the rest of the story.

NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE: RESPONSE TO ROLL CALL
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR,
BECKY CAIN, NOVEMBER 20, 1997

To the Editor:

League of Women Voters (LWV) President Becky Cain has attacked the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) for running radio ads that criticize certain lawmakers who are pushing bills to restrict our speech about politicians' positions on issues. [Letters, Nov. 20] She claimed our ads are "wildly inaccurate," but failed to mention a single inaccuracy - perhaps because the text of each ad scrupulously conforms to the provisions of each specific bill discussed.

Although Ms. Cain neglected to mention it, several of the bills opposed by NRLC (including those proposed by Reps. Baesler and Gephardt, HR 1366 and HR 2777, respectively) contain a provision recommended in the LWV's own five-point "campaign reform" plan - to prohibit groups (other than federal PACs) from even mentioning the name of a federal politician in print or broadcast communications to the public, for three months before any primary or general election (even if the communication deals with an imminent vote in Congress).

The LWV has promoted this outrageous gag-rule scheme in a $1 million TV and print ad campaign, funded with tax-deductible money from the Pew Charitable Trusts. The LWV proposal explicitly exempts "candidate debates and press coverage" from the proposed restrictions on corporate-sponsored commentary on politicians. Not surprising, since the LWV (itself a non-profit corporation) depends heavily on its credibility with the institutional news media and editorial boards - credibility closely related to its carefully cultivated image as a "neutral" sponsor of "nonpartisan" debates - in order to advance its public policy agenda.

But what is that agenda? Many might be surprised to learn that it includes lobbying against restrictions on abortion - even partial-birth abortion. On April 3, Ms. Cain herself signed a LWV letter to all senators, urging them to vote against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in the name of "reproductive choice." The LWV also lobbied this year in favor of the chemical weapons treaty, gun control, funding of the U.N., health care for children, and clean air standards, and against the balanced budget constitutional amendment.

We believe that the LWV has a perfect right, under the First Amendment, to seek to persuade officeholders, officeseekers, or the general public of its viewpoint on these or any other issues. But we will strongly resist the LWV's attempt to use the force of law to suppress the free-speech rights of other, larger associations of American citizens, such as NRLC and the Christian Coalition, in order to enhance the eroding value of its own species of political "currency."

Finally, Ms. Cain seems perturbed that NRLC received contributions from the RNC and from a wealthy businessman in 1996. Since it is still a free country, NRLC is ready and eager to receive such legal donations, with no strings attached, from any individuals, incorporated groups, unions, or parties that support NRLC's public policy goals, including our current defense of the First Amendment's protection for the right to communicate with the public about politicians' positions on issues. However, potential donors should be aware that such donations to NRLC are not tax-deductible - unlike the money funnelled through fat-cat foundation bosses that Ms. Cain's group is spending to promote legislation to gag us.