The other centers on the issue of public financing  and is largely a dispute over whether independents should be availing themselves of public money, just  as the Democrats and Republicans do.

So far, it's the public financing that has drawn the  most fire. Media commentary on the Reform Party's eligibility for $12.6 million in general election funding began during the summer. The negative refrain at that time was how the "pot o' gold" would attract political gold diggers.

Of course, that was the whole point. The 1974 legislation which created the public financing program was  designed to make sure that minor parties and candidates could compete in the two-party dominated arena.  Having $13 million available to its nominee helps the Reform Party attract bigger and better  candidates--candidates who can compete more  effectively with the Democratic and Republican nominees. Those nominees, by the way, are guaranteed $60 million a piece in public funds.  No doubt John McCain, Bill Bradley, Al Gore and George W. Bush found the chance to win $60   million for their campaigns attractive.

But in the eyes of the media, they're not gold diggers.  They're statesmen. It's kind of like when a mother on welfare takes an off-the-books job cleaning houses to supplement her public assistance. She's a welfare cheat. But the major corporations which avail  themselves of esoteric loopholes in the IRS code (loopholes their lobbyists wrote) and avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes are just good businessmen.

Lately, Reform's eligibility for public money is being criticized because, as some commentators have noted, Pat Buchanan and by (illogical) extension  one of his key endorsers--me--could be the beneficiaries.  Some, like Roger Pilon, opined in the New York Times  that the Buchanan/Fulani spectre was one more  argument against any public funding at all. Others,  like Alair Townsend, of Crain's New York Business   who are supporters of public financing, are disturbed that the Buchanan campaign might receive the $12.6 million because…well...she thinks that Buchanan and I are "dangerous." Moreover, she's worried the money will go for my "party-building" efforts.

First of all, should Pat Buchanan become the Reform  nominee, the money will go to his campaign committee to be spent in accordance with FEC guidelines for   presidential campaigns and will be carefully audited by the FEC. Will the effect of Buchanan's candidacy be to build the Reform Party? I sure hope so. We're not a major party. We're a minor party. We're in the business of party-building. That's what the 5% threshold is for--to allow minor parties a shot at becoming major. Otherwise, public financing would be nothing but a  ploy to maintain the status quo and keep incumbency permanent. That's supposed to be unconstitutional--even though it's standard practice in electoral politics. 

Still others, like Sean Wilentz of The New Republic, have protested the "quirk" in campaign laws that enables Reform to receive the money in the first place. Let's go back to the basics. 

After the fundraising excesses of Watergate and the resignation of Richard Nixon, Congress set about instituting a series of reforms designed to "limit the actuality and appearance of corruption" in federal elections. It passed a series of amendments in 1974 to the Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971 and to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 which established public financing for presidential candidates for the first time--a matching funds program for the primaries and public election funding for the general election. Congress conjoined this public funding with contribution and  expenditure limits in an effort to make fundraising for the presidency more transparent, accountable and democratic.

An important element of FECA's public funding was establishing categories of "major" and "minor" parties at the national level. A major party polled 25% or more for its presidential candidate. A minor party polled between 5% and 25%. Major parties would be entitled to public financing for their general election campaigns up to the full expenditure limit, which is currently around $66 million Minor parties would be entitled to a proportional share based on their percentage of the vote. Ross Perot's 8˝% in 1996 established the Reform Party as a new  national minor party--the first party to qualify as such since the amending of FECA and the IRS code.

Any public financing program which funded only the status quo (i.e., the Republicans and Democrats) would be unconstitutional. The minor party category was established in order to make access to public funding fair and equitable in accordance with basic constitutional principles of equal protection and the First Amendment. That's not what you'd call a "quirk."

What is really bothering Townsend and Wilentz and a gaggle of other commentators is that the Reform Party finally accomplished what the post-Watergate reformers put down on paper, but never believed could be done.

Now that it has happened, its "dangerous". It's opening a Pandora's box of novel questions that the two partyists thought they'd never have to answer.

Here's are some. If the taxpayers are funding the Reform Party's candidate, don't they have the right to see that candidate in the televised presidential debates? And what about the fact that the debates are sponsored by an organization--the Commission on Presidential Debates--that receives a tax exemption because it purports to provide a nonpartisan educational service to the public? Shouldn't that organization be required to be nonpartisan, rather than bipartisan? Doesn't it have the obligation to take the particular realities of minor party participation into account just the way Congress and the Supreme Court had to?

Campaign 2000 will give us a first round of answers--so stay tuned!

Lenora B. Fulani twice ran for President of the U.S. as an independent, making history in 1988 when she became the first woman and African American to get on the ballot in all fifty states. Dr. Fulani is currently a leading activist in the Reform Party and chairs the Committee for a Unified Independent Party. She can be reached at 800-288-3201 or at http://www.Fulani.org. To have your name added to the email distribution list for Dr. Fulani's column please notify us at:  editor@cuip.org.