Going into this legislative session, there is hope that the Democratic majority will enact substantive reforms to Virginia's campaign finance rules and follow through on promises to limit contributions and impose stricter rules on the use of donations. It was increasing.
Those hopes were dashed as Democrats rejected many of the committee's most promising proposals. The surviving bills face an uphill battle as those who promised to fix the system have once again caved to defending it.
Virginia is generally considered an outlier in its approach to campaign finance regulation because it employs “radical transparency” rather than strict rules as an accountability measure. Contributions and expenditures must be reported and that information made available to the public.
The argument is that public scrutiny leads to behavioral change, with people potentially less likely to financially support candidates who spend money on frivolous personal expenses, and donors more responsive to scrutiny. If they do so, the authorities could become intimidated by reliable legislation.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this approach is naive and no longer suitable for modern federations. Lawmakers continue to follow the orders of their most powerful sponsors, and few Virginians have the time or inclination to read financial reports. That's why campaign reformers consistently rank Virginia as having the weakest regulations in the nation.
This situation persists despite Virginia's annual efforts to impose some looser limits on the use of campaign funds.
Last year, for example, the Democratic-led Senate passed a bill that would restrict members from using campaign funds for things like country club memberships, hotel stays, fancy dinners and even car expenses. Congressional candidates are prohibited from spending on luxury items deemed outside of their official duties, but all of them are legal in Virginia.
The bill died in the Republican-led House of Representatives. But it's not Republicans' fault that the same bill faces similar problems this year, when Democrats hold majorities in both chambers.
The Senate passed the bill, sponsored by Sen. Jennifer B. Boisko, D-Fairfax, but the House died a companion bill in committee, and the Senate bill is likely to meet a similar fate. It suggests that.
The House also rejected a bill that would have limited contributions to candidates in Virginia House races to no more than $10,000 and contributions to candidates in statewide or state Senate races to no more than $20,000 in any given election cycle. .
Proposals to ban campaign contributions from regulated power companies such as Dominion Power and to limit the amount candidates can raise for their own campaigns also expire this year.
Democrats seem furious about the way campaign finance is regulated in Virginia (many said the same thing while trying to get elected last year), but not enough to actually do anything about it.
Polls consistently show that Virginians want tighter controls on campaign finance. The Wason Center at Christopher Newport University found in a poll sponsored by BigMoneyOutVA that 75% support donation limits and 73% want tighter limits on the personal use of donated funds.
Virginia should also not forget the legal storm that slammed former Gov. Bob McDonnell when prosecutors treated donations as a reward system. Although the former governor's convictions on these charges were overturned, few would think from this episode that all is well in the commonwealth.
It turns out that while the general public wants reform, those in charge of enforcing it, and those who directly benefit from the status quo, are not enthusiastic about it. This bodes ill for Citizens' Assemblies, as Congress claims they are, as large amounts of money funneled into campaign coffers will create further distance between civil servants and civil servants.
There may still be hope that lawmakers will reverse course, but that hope is fading by the day. And it means deep-pocketed donors still set the General Assembly's agenda at the expense of regular Joes and Janes who can't afford to pay.
