The Best Politicians Money Can(not) Buy
by
Jon Greenbaum
Mark of the Devil
$666,000. That’s the average cost of getting elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2000. After 8 years of Clinton, is there one person in this country who denies that money is a decisive factor in politics? Will Marc Rich’s pardon leave the entire citizenry disgusted and cynical, hopeless that gov’t can act for the people who can’t buy themselves influence? Shall we throw up our hands and sell corporations the naming rights to our politicians?
Going Beyond Cynicism
Don’t give up hope yet. The first order of business is getting money out of politics. If politicians didn’t have to worry about where their next piece of campaign cash was coming from, maybe, just maybe, they might approach the task of legislating from a slightly more ethical position. The obvious solution is to end the practice of contributions to candidates and their parties and give them free radio and television advertising. We can do that by making all FCC radio, TV and cable licenses contingent on free advertising for candidates. The citizens own the airwaves, so we should be able to regulate them in a way that supports democracy. Yes, this sounds incredibly naive, but progressive social movements always seem unrealistic before they reach critical mass and transform society. Newspapers scoffed at the women’s suffrage movement for years. Our job as citizen activists is to up the ante and demand what is right.
Yes, We'll Have to Pay
If candidates need cash to run their campaigns then we could give them some through a tax-funded campaign fund. I’d rather kick in $5 of my own money toward the public financing of campaigns then sit by and watch the entire gov’t get eaten up by corporate cash. I can afford five bucks; I can’t afford to do nothing as the banking and credit card companies buy Hillary Clinton’s vote on bankruptcy reform. Think of it as an investment in purging the system of corporate welfare.
The Hitch
The problem, however, is an obscure Supreme Court ruling: Buckley vs. Vallejo, which equates campaign contributions with free speech. We can’t outlaw free speech, so we can’t outlaw campaign contributions. Apparently, Citicorp has a constitutional right to deliver a wheelbarrow full of cash to Hillary Clinton’s war chest.
The Solution
A publicly funded campaign finance system could be voluntary and run parallel to the private contribution system. Candidates could choose to run as ‘Clean Money’ candidates. They would show their viability and validity as candidates by raising a certain amount of $5 qualifying contributions. They would then be eligible for the Clean Money Campaign fund. These candidates could then proclaim that they were beholden to no corporation or special interest. On the other hand a candidate could choose to raise money from private sources and take their chances of being labelled “in the pocket of special interests”.
Clean Money Campaign reform would also close the soft money loopholes that allow political parties to act as conduits for corporate cash to candidates. While the McCain-Feingold bill addresses those loopholes it does nothing to address the fundamental issue of direct corporate sponsorship of candidates.
One of the biggest obstacles for progressive activists who might otherwise run for office is raising money. A Clean Money Election fund would allow a broader range of qualified candidates. Grassroots activists might actually have a shot at getting elected. Clean Money candidates wouldn’t have to spend time and resources raising money. They would receive the average amount spent on a campaign. If their privately sponsored opponent raised more money, the fund could hand out dollar for dollar matches to the Clean Money candidate, up to a set limit. Clean Money candidates could also receive additional funds if they were targeted by unregulated issue ads. All this adds up to about $1.3 billion for a Congressional election cycle. That’s $6.50 for the average taxpayer per year. We wouldn’t even have to pay that much, however, if the Clean Election fund was financed by the $5 qualifying contributions, voluntary contributions and the closing of corporate welfare loopholes. What is democracy worth to you?
Some people might object that this system would undermine PACs like Emily’s List and Union PACs. We have to decide whether we will continue to play a game that we can never win (private sector unions are outspent by corporations 8 to 1 in New York) or whether we are going to change the rules to level the playing field.
It Could Never Happen
It already has happened in Maine, Vermont, and Arizona. Last year 116 candidates in Maine (out of a field of 374) chose the Clean Money option. In Maine candidates have to raise 2,500 qualifying contributions ($5) for the gubernatorial race, 150 qualifying for the State Senate and 50 for the House. Once certified, they can’t use their own money or accept contributions from private sources. Before they are certified however, they can receive individual seed money contributions (no PACs or corporate cash) of up to $100 for the sole purpose of financing the qualifying process. The caps for this process are $50,000 for the gubernatorial race, $1,500 for the Senate and $500 for the House.
Most of Maine’s Clean Election fund comes from a $2 million allocation out of the state budget. The $5 qualifying contributions go into the fund as well as any leftover seed money. In addition, Maine residents can check-off a voluntary $3 contribution on their tax returns (Maine raised $556,000) over the last two years with this check-off).
What's Happening in New York?
Over 80 citizen groups in New York, from Acorn to CWA Local 1180 to West Harlem Environmental Action, support a Clean Money Clean Election initiative in New York.
The proposed legislation (S6012/A.8937) is more demanding here in New York than in Maine. For example, a gubernatorial candidate would have to get 15,000 $5 qualifying contributions, and a Senate candidate would have to get 1000, an Assembly candidate 400. Nevertheless, this bill could change the way this state is run. Of course the bill is stuck in committee. Massive grassroots pressure is needed to get Pataki, Bruno and Silver to budge on this issue. Polls show that between 65% to 75% of voters support the Clean Money Clean Election system. It’s time for cards and letters to your State Assemblyperson and State Senator.