In 1999, a 90-year-old activist known as Granny D, walked from California to Washington. D.C., to dramatize the need for campaign finance reform. She wore out four pairs of shoes, but her enthusiasm for reform never faded. For 14 months, Granny D walked 10 miles a day, warning Americans that democracy "is drowning in a flood of money."

ONE PERSON- ONE VOTE

For decades, concerned citizens complained that the high cost of running for elected office corrupted American politics. Because candidates needed to raise millions of dollars, they spent countless hours wooing wealthy donors. Often, big givers were rewarded with special privileges, such as frequent opportunities to meet with politicians and influence policies.

Critics protested that those who give the most money during campaigns should not automatically receive the most influence. They warned that this practice amounted to legalized bribery and undermined the principle of one person- one vote. Hoping to end the appearance of corruption, Congress passed a law in 1974 that limited the amount of money a person could give to each candidate.

The new law, however, outraged defenders of the old system. They argued in court that limiting campaign donations undermined the principle of free speech, and that citizens should be allowed to support politicians any way they desire. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled that limits on individual campaign contributions are constitutional, because without them, the integrity of the electoral process would be threatened.

CLOSING THE LOOPHOLE

For years, though, politicians have taken advantage of a loophole in the federal election law. The statute prohibited donors from giving more than $1,000 per candidate, but it didn't limit donations- called soft money- to political parties. In 2002, the major political parties raised more than $400 million in soft money, which they promptly used to support candidates.

In response, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) last year, limiting soft money donations to political parties. When opponents filed lawsuits against the BCRA, history seemed to repeat itself. The Supreme Court heard the case in a special session on September 8. As we went to press, the Court had not decided the case.

THE JEWISH VIEW

Federal investigators rarely charge wealthy campaign contributors or politicians with bribery because it's extremely difficult to prove that a donation was given in exchange for a specific political favor. Nonetheless, the Torah's prohibition against bribery (Shemot 23:8), v'shohad lo tikah (you must not take a bribe), brings clarity to the campaign finance debate.

The Torah condemns bribery because it "blinds the clear sighted and upsets the pleas of the just." The need to raise huge sums of money for elections might lead politicians into a similarly blinding position. When they focus exclusively on pursuing donations from the wealthy, politicians may identify more closely with the interests of the privileged than with the needs of the least privileged in society. In contrast, Jewish law (Devarim 24:17) commands us to protect the most vulnerable members of society: "You shall not subvert the rights of the stranger or the orphan."

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Would you agree to limiting how much citizens can financially support candidates, even if that means the Jewish community's political influence might diminish?