The California-based Greenlining Institute released recommendations for campaign finance reform from a civil rights perspective on February 12, the day the House of Representatives started debating the issue. Their recommendations are based on consultations with minority and low-income community leaders and a study of campaign contribution patterns in California. While some recommendations are addressed in pending campaign finance reform legislation, others are not, and will require a continued push for reform. The recommendations are:

• Ban soft money contributions to political parties
• Regulate issue advocacy funding
• Institute a voluntary public financing system to cap campaign expenditures
• Restore public benefit mandates for TV and radio
• Allow low-income filers to participate in Presidential election funding

Both the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold bills ban soft money contributions to political parties (see related story, this issue). Greelining's proposals on issue advocacy call for regulation through disclosure and contribution limits for groups that spend over $25,000 a year on targeted broadcasts and mass mailings that identify a federal candidate and are made within 60 days of an election. This is less restrictive than the bills pending in Congress, which ban broadcasts that identify a candidate within 60 days of an election or 30 days of a primary. The report also notes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not enforced a 1971 law that requires broadcasters to provide their lowest rates to candidates during the campaign season, and calls for closing the loophole that allows broadcasters to bump campaign ads into less desirable time slots if a higher paying customer wants to purchase prime time. This forces candidates to pay the top rate in order to assure prime-time airing. This provision is in the McCain-Feingold bill, but was taken out of the Shays-Meehan bill. The report notes that no contribution to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is made if a taxpayer has no tax liability, even if the filer indicates that they want the allocation made. Because 1 in every 4 tax filers has no liability, and the funds come from the Treasury and not the individual tax filer, this process excludes a significant segment of the population from participating in the Fund. The report says revising the check off system would "broaden political participation" and "enhance the future financial strength of the public funding system." Moving in the opposite direction, Rep. J.C. Watts Jr. (R-OK) has introduced a bill (H.R. 3709) that would make such contributions "after-tax," rather than an allocation from the Treasury. These contributions could also be earmarked for a political party. Watts' statement said, "The taxpayer has no voice as to whom these funds go or where these funds will be spent," and noted that the $200 million the Fund spent in 2000 could be better used in the Treasury. The Greenlining Institute is a multi-ethnic coalition of nonprofits that focuses on public policy, leadership training and advocacy to promote economic development for low-income and minority communities in California. The report and research results can be found on the organization's website.