Campaign finance reform approved by Congress on March 20 is no disaster for the US oil and gas industry.
The legislation bans unregulated donations to national political parties - soft money. It doubles to $2,000 the amount an individual can give a candidate in a single election - hard money.
It also limits spending by unions, corporations, and pressure groups on campaign ads targeting specific candidates.
Soft money had become the main source of political funding at the federal level - totaling $500 million in 1999-2000.
Reform supporters argued - soundly - that so much spending on elections aggravates voter cynicism.
Opponents argued - also soundly - that limits on donations unconstitutionally restrict speech.
The biggest piece of nonsense in the debate was reformist insistence that the legislation will take money out of politics.
It won't. It will shift money away from national political parties toward advocacy groups and state parties.
For the oil and gas industry, that movement holds promise.
Giving large sums of money to political parties in exchange for access to politicians makes an industry perennially under suspicion look even more suspicious than usual.
The aggravated suspicion works against achievement of policy goals.
Instead of spending money on huddles with politicians certain to do what they please anyway, the industry should be funding think tanks and public relations programs.
The access it craves should be to popular consciousness, not political insiders. It should schmooze less and persuade more.
An approach like that would expose dissent. Companies always disagree over specific issues. Their interests diverge.
Great! Nothing would be better for the industry's image than a public airing of intramural feuds. It would demonstrate that the industry isn't the sinister monolith that people unfamiliar with it think it is.
The debate would sharpen thinking about energy questions and enhance creativity in the management of issues.
Two common challenges would keep the industry from splintering.
One is sustaining energy supply of a rapidly growing global population. The other is preventing mistakes by governments ever inclined toward hyperactivity.
Both challenges require money.
No less so in politics than elsewhere, the key is to spend it wisely.
(Online March 22, 2002; author's e-mail: [email protected])