Campaign Finance Reform is Dead, Long Live Clean Elections
After our debate in March on campaign finance reform and clean elections in March, the the Supreme Court's decision on McCain-Feinfold has made any serious limitations on spending by corporations and the wealthy almost impossible to implement.
Between FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, which will unleash a mass of corporate "issue" ads around election time and last year's Randall v. Sorrell, which struck down Vermont's tight limits on campaign contributions, the Court is increasingly making any limits on spending by monied interests impossible.
Which returns us to public financing of elections as the ONLY serious approach to ending corporate dominance of elections.
Maine and Arizona have been running publicly financed elections for their statehouses for a number of years now, with a majority of elected officials running under the system successfully. Connecticut recently joined them in passing a full "clean elections" law and other states have enacted more limited versions.
The key to those systems is that, to discourage opposing candidates from outspending clean elections candidates, such laws usually have a "matching funds" provision that raises public financing amounts for candidates when their opponents spend more than them. By enhancing the speech of publicly financed candidates, rather than restricting spending of their opponents, clean elections achieves the same purpose of limiting the disproportionate power of corporate interests without running afoul of Supreme Court legal limits.
While some advocates might try to say those matching funds "chill" spending by those with money, if those folks really think they have a better argument, they won't care that others can match their spending. They just will want to spend enough to get "their" message out, so there's no violation of their rights if others can match their spending through public financing.
We'll see if this rightwing court will go so crazy as to strike down public financing systems, but at the moment, it's the only game left in town.
When it comes to federal elections corporations cannot donate money to a candidate, per current campaign finance laws. So, the statement that corporations are paying for candidates is incorrect.
If you look at the statistics released by the FEC you do see numbers that would make you believe that corporations are contributing to candidates. The FEC requires donors to state who their employer is when they donate to a campaign, but they are also required to sign a statement saying that they are donating only personal funds, with no reimbursement by anyone else. The FEC then totals the donations by industry and includes a tabulation by industry of who the major donors are. The amusing thing is that the number one "industry" in donations is usually "retired".
One major problem with campaign finance laws is that there is little if any enforcement of those laws. Candidates make no effort at all to enforce them, and unless someone files a complaint, which the laws discourage, there will be no investigation of donations. So, campaign finance limitations are largely an illusion.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 2, 2007 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is one other option: a constitutional amendment imposing constraints upon election campaigns.
July 2, 2007 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps some sort of tax scheme might be worth a try. Suppose a state imposed a media purchase tax for ads appearing on local radio and tv stations. The money raised could be put into a special fund to finance the campaigns of those accepting public financing.
Those subject to the tax are the same organizations which the Supreme Court has just exempted from spending limits. The category is well defined. There is no limit on the amount of tax that can be applied. One could apply a 1000% tax, for example if the object was to eliminate all such advertising completely. Or one could apply a 100% tax if the aim was to actually raise money for underfunded candidates.
I think the court would have a hard time finding a constitutional argument for limit a tax rate. (Although Roberts and Alito are quite good at inventing justifications for whatever they wish to do.)
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
July 2, 2007 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you support that? Much as I don't like money-dominated elections, that would mark the first new amendment which overrode a portion of the First, which is a slope I don't care to start down to find out how slippery it is.
July 2, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Publicly financed elections are the only way to get our country back. The Democrats could pass a public financing law to show the nation they are serious, but they won't because they are so craven they will fear what might happen to their own incumbencies if they do what they know to be right. It's appalling.
July 2, 2007 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corporations in this day and age are how people organize to accomplish goals they cannot accomplish individually. We should be happy that corporations like Wisconsin Right to Life, Sierra Club, NARAL, Move On, etc. are taking pols to task. Particularly near election time. Putting barriers in the way people organize to achieve political ends is anti-democratic.
The sons of the prophet are noble and bold,
and quite unaccustomed to fear.
But the bravest by far in the ranks of the Shah
was Abdul Abulbul Amir
July 6, 2007 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink