Will We Have A Bit
More Democracy
in the Presbyterian Church (USA)?
by Chris Iosso, Witherspoon Issues Analyst
9/2/00
Below you'll find:
Overture 49 -- what
it says and does
Theological arguments for finance reform
Practical arguments for the larger
society
Conclusion
When four Presbyterian former
governors of North Carolina sat down at a recent meeting at Montreat
Conference Center, they agreed on the moral problems involved in
campaign fund-raising under our current political system.
Witherspoon members, and readers of Gene TeSelle and
Doug King's summary of this past General
Assembly, may know what those governors did not seem to: that an
overwhelming number of commissioners shared their views about the need
for campaign finance reform. And more, that those commissioners
understood a similar process of fund-driven politicization needed
sunshine in the Presbyterian Church (USA) itself.
The General Assembly voted (by 468 to 31, with 12
abstentions) to direct the Office of the Stated Clerk to request all
special organizations relating to the Presbyterian Church (USA) to
provide brief, voluntary reports on their operations, beliefs and
budgets, including all contributors of $1,000 or more. This provides a
significant opportunity to make public the more than $9,000,000 spent
annually influencing the General Assembly and its policies. The question
now stands: will the Stated Clerk -- overwhelmingly re-elected and
willing to fight for ecumenism -- strengthen the denominational
structure by pushing this kind of basic (if voluntary) accountability?
And will the various progressive groups submit substantial responses in
a way that they used to do under "Chapter 9" of the Book
of Order and other reporting mechanisms?
Readers of the recent book by the Institute for
Democracy Studies (IDS) know that the Lay Committee is not the only big
money player in influencing the church. Historically, while reporting
quarterly to the Pew Charitable Trusts and at least annually to the US
Internal Revenue Service, the Lay Committee refused to disclose its
financing and non-membership structure to the denomination. Fair minded
folk were always amazed at this one-way accountability demanded by the
Layman, and we would be very pleased if this track record were to
change.
In the years since Reunion, when Chapter 9 was phased
out, special interest organizations in the church have proliferated. A
careful special committee appointed by Moderator John Buchanan called
for renewed "relationships of accountability" by special
interest groups, but this effort was chewed up in an unprepared
committee on General Assembly Procedures. Disappointingly, the Committee
on Social Witness Policy -- perhaps fearing the determined opposition --
lumped these measures with Chapter 9 and did not support them.
This past year's overture 49 from the Presbytery of
Hudson River did not call for Book of Order changes, rather
presenting the issue as one of consistency: if we believe unchecked
amounts of soft money are corrupting our civil politics, then the same
principle applies to our own church (though we do not prohibit over
$1,000 personal contributions, but merely wish to track them). And if
the church wishes to speak credibly to the civil order, it must show
that it puts its money where its mouth is.
The Assembly's action adopting the overture calls for
each organization claiming to be part of the Presbyterian Church (USA)
-- to use our name, influence our members -- to provide:
a) legal title, legal and tax status, date of
founding, location of offices, number of paid staff, number of members
if a membership organization, list of publications and their
circulation.
b) total budget with list of over $1,000 donors and
copy of by-laws or charter.
c) 300 word summaries of each organization's goals
and methods, and of their theology, especially of the church of Jesus
Christ.
Further, the General Assembly requested the Clerk to
make a report available (by e-mail) summarizing this data and commenting
on its importance and content. There are no sanctions stated as part of
the recommendations, no compliance mechanisms and hence no significant
costs beyond publication of worthwhile data.
These measures were fought hard in the Committee on
National and Social Issues by a prepared minority, some of whom
disagreed with the basic premises of campaign finance reform. Yet common
sense and some theological arguments (noted below) seemed to make for
strong support -- even though the move to e-mail for the Clerk's segment
of the material requested weakened the overall emphasis on empowering
commissioners. Overall, commissioners were very interested in knowing
who was shaping so much of the General Assembly's business.
Theological
Arguments
As we approach the general election, there are
significant Reformed Christian arguments for campaign finance reform
that look both at voting itself and at the broad context of the
"social contract," if not "the common good." A full
Biblical sourcing can not be given here (for example, translating I
Corinthians' Christian politics for broader society), but several
concepts may be helpful.
1. The Third Use of the Law validates fair
regulation. If we are to conduct our business "decently
and in order," we can not de-value regulation. In principle, we are
in favor not only of good laws, but of law -- fairly applied rules
enforced above all by mutual consent -- as a guide to the elect. The
first two uses of the law, in Luther's commentary on Galatians, for
example, are to show we are sinners in need of grace, and to maintain
public order and justice over violence and other manifestations of sin.
Calvin, in sections 8, 11, 17 and 19 of Instruction in Faith, for
example, shows that law gives guidance and structure to life in the
Spirit: "when and where the Lord has engraved in our hearts the
love for his righteousness, the external teaching of the Law (which
before was only charging us with weakness and transgression) is now a
lamp to guide our feet...It is now our wisdom through which we are
formed, instructed and encouraged to all integrity..." (Section
17).
2. Equality before law is part of our Reformed
heritage. The presence of the 10 Commandments and other parts
of the Old Testament in our Reformed Confessions, our emphasis on
"social righteousness," reinforce our polity's reluctance to
elevate anyone over another. No bishops and no pope translate into no
shadow bishops and overly powerful interests that inevitably push others
around. We Presbyterians claim to understand, better than
non-Calvinists, the depth of sin and depravity that affects even the
church itself and requires laws and public accountability.
3. Community is based on trust, not coercion.
This is one reason that self-regulation, based in the Stated Clerk's
office on the model of annual congregational reports, and including
theological statements not formerly part of chapter 9, was favored by
the Assembly. The authority of the Assembly is founded on trust, so that
to strengthen our common bond requires measures that encourage trust.
(The Assembly wisely turned down proposed changes in Nominations
procedures that would have eroded trust, but unfortunately the judicial
arguments enforcing Amendment B rely on a coercive connectionalism that
distrusts the Spirit in the church at the particular point of call).
4. Mutual respect starts at the symbolic
center. If the General Assembly is ideally the place of
blessing, then healthy organizations respect the agency of the Clerkship
by submitting information. Obviously, the GA is not an idol;
"synods and councils may err;" but by trashing staff,
withholding funds, and reverting to punitive discipline (strangely
parallel the Roman Catholic Church, with all kinds of freelance
inquisitors), even Right Wing organizations weaken the trunk of which
they are properly branches.
Practical
Arguments for the Larger Society
1. Current legislation: The clear
direction of the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate and the Shays-Meehan
bill in the House of Representatives, is toward creating a more level
playing filed for candidates, as we in fact do in our own Moderator and
Stated Clerk elections. According to polling data, about 80% of
Americans favor campaign finance reform, understanding how the
"soft money" coming from corporations, labor unions and rich
donors through political parties to candidates is a clear buying of
influence. Most people understand that many candidates are discouraged
from running, and many people are discouraged from voting.
2. The scope of the problem: Total
election spending, mainly on TV ads, is expected to top $2 billion this
year. The cost of a congressional seat can be a as low as a few hundred
thousand in uncontested districts in inexpensive TV markets. Senate
seats usually require at least $5 million; the NJ Democratic primary
cost its winner, Jon Corzine, over $30 million. All this leads to vastly
unequal access to tax breaks, unequal liability, covert subsidies,
adding to social inequality. One Manhattan zip code, for example,
produces more special interest money than the entire population of the
15 poorest states.
3. Legal issues: Justice David Souter
summed the matter in late January when the Supreme Court upheld the
$1,000 limit on contributions by individuals to candidates: "I
think most people assume -- I do, certainly -- that someone making an
extraordinarily large contribution is going to get some kind of an
extraordinary return for it. I think that is a pervasive assumption.
And... there is certainly an appearance of, call it an attenuated
corruption, if you will, that large contributors are simply going to get
better service, whatever that service might be, from a politician than
the average contributor." (Time, Feb. 7, 2000, p. 41).
(The Court has allowed "free speech" to be used as an argument
to allow large donors to spend unlimited money, but legal arguments are
now focusing on the "fairness doctrine," which could mean
requiring equal time for opposing views and expanded public service
media time. Another reason to watch who will do the next round of
Supreme Court appointments...)
Conclusion
From a Christian standpoint, no laws, voluntary or
mandatory, will make people or society perfect. Yet not to see how power
corrupts and not to resist that corruption is to be caught by it. Many
other arguments can be given for good government than those given here,
as much good Reformed thought went into the development of democratic
institutions in church and society. It may be that for many
Presbyterians, campaign finance reform may seem to go against
self-interest. But it would help the voice of the Church as a church be
heard more clearly, and the silencing of that voice ultimately weakens
all voices.
