By MARK WRIGHTON Special to the Daily Press
The 2004 Republican National Convention shifted into high gear on Tuesday as the focus moved from foreign to domestic policy. Another sign of the convention’s faster pace was the sharp increase in the number of places I wanted to be at any given time. Of course, by this I mean the number of receptions and parties honoring various party dignitaries.
As a member of the New Hampshire Republican Party (but hiding behind the “undeclared” label available in the Granite State), I have access to the breakfast and social events given for the delegation throughout the week. The state’s status as a 2004 presidential battleground and its first-in-the-nation presidential primary encouraged visits to the New Hampshire events from prominent party members — some of whom just might be thinking about a run in 2008. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and New York Gov. George Pataki have spoken to the delegates. Many state delegations will see none of these officials at all this week.
Tuesday afternoon found me facing a choice among three places I wanted to be. I was interested in seeing George H. W. Bush and George P. Bush at a reception put on by the Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute at the Roosevelt Hotel; the NASCAR reception at Chelsea Piers and the American Association of Political Consultants event at The Loft in Midtown. I opted to see the 41st president of the United States and went to the Roosevelt Hotel.
The reception was in an ornately-decorated and spacious ballroom of the Roosevelt Hotel. Before the former president and his grandson spoke, the emcee exhorted us to thank the corporate sponsors (after all, the watered-down sangria did not just magically appear).
This — and similar episodes at other events this week — prompted me to consider the cost of the convention, the supporting events, and campaigns in general.
In the political system, there is angst about the cost of elections and the alleged influence of money. Some believe that the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 (BCFRA) actually made great strides in limiting the influence of money in elections. The enormous costs of the convention go a long way toward contradicting that belief, however.
According to the Campaign Finance Institute (www.cfinst.org), the Democratic convention cost $65 million, and the Grand Old Party here in New York $110 million. Combined, the parties raised a little more than $100 million of the cost from private contributors, which is up from about $9 million in 1992. A ruling by the Federal Election Commission created this “loophole” in campaign finance rules. Thus, despite BCFRA’s best efforts to ban “soft money” contributions to the parties, private interests have a means to continue to contribute large sums to the parties’ efforts.
But one must also remember the hundreds of parties and receptions being held throughout Gotham this week. Whether someone will think more highly of corporations, or work to provide them with government “goodies” as a result of these parties is a point for debate. Some are concerned with the surface appearance of impropriety while still others worry about the access and influence gained by sponsorship of these events. Others might just scratch their heads and wonder if anyone can actually be bought with a couple of glasses of watered-down sangria.
Despite reformers’ best efforts to choke the supply, money always finds a way into the political world. Most times, reform efforts geared toward removing the influence of money in the system actually lead to more of it floating around in unanticipated ways. True reform will come, not by eliminating money from the system, but by sending more men and women of incorruptible integrity to office. (Mark Wrighton is spending the year in Washington as a congressional fellow. He).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on September 2, 2004. Read the original PDF.