 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||
Building a Permanent Majority for Reform
This past cycle, progressive donors confronted incredible pressure, especially from Democrats, to support the re-election of the President and preserve a Senate majority. In many cases, despite moral hesitation, big-dollar donors ignored their better angels and supported the super PACs backing Obama for America (Priorities USA), Senate Democrats (Majority PAC), and House Democrats (House Majority PAC).
Some donors, like billionaire Warren Buffett, made a principled decision: Never donate to the super PACs created by the Citizens United decision. “I don’t want to see democracy go in that direction,” Buffett told the annual shareholders meeting of Berkshire Hathaway. “You have to take a stand some place.”
Buffett is absolutely right. To build a mandate for reform, both large- and small-dollar donors must turn their backs on the political entities spawned by Citizens United. Until they do, politicians will be enabled to pay lip service to reform publicly, yet quietly know that their financial backers will still support their participation in a corrupt system.
Some will say that Democrats must embrace corrupt money to stay competitive—but the argument is both self-serving for politicians and unmoored to reality. The problem with unlimited campaign money under Citizens United was never that it would necessarily advantage one party over another. The problem is that the money will systemically corrupt both governing parties that rely on the funding to win elections. And it will enrich an entire industry of consultants who defend the status quo.
A subset of donors will also continue to give to organizations dedicated to campaign-finance reform or increased disclosure, and such support certainly helps educate the public about the corrupt legislative and policy outcomes that will flow from a system of unlimited, often-undisclosed money. But the most important thing that high-dollar donors can do—the men and women closest to candidates, campaigns, and their lobbyists—is to give nothing, zero dollars, to any vehicle created by Citizens United or subsequent decisions. Washington will notice.
Citizens and Activists
Many activists have called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision—either by amending a portion of the Bill of Rights or by amending the Fourteenth Amendment, to deny constitutional personhood to corporations. There is real energy behind this movement: Citizens across the country have engaged local city councils, county boards, and state assemblies across the country, in both red states and blue. This energy has brought many people into the conversation about how money has corrupted our politics, and I’m heartened by the work these activists have done. The organization and drive behind these efforts, if channeled towards achievable goals, will remain a huge asset to the reform movement.
And there’s no doubt that a mandate for reform is growing. The question we face is whether we can unite to channel that energy into tangible action. To do so, we must first acknowledge that a constitutional amendment is unlikely to succeed, regardless of whether it targets the First or Fourteenth amendments.
Second, we must accept our role as citizens, and especially as progressives, in pressing Democrats to eschew corrupting money. We can do this by passing state-level reforms to stop the tide of corruption locally and proving the popularity of clean elections. Grassroots movements in both New York and California are on the cusp of real progress.
We can also do this by supporting candidates in the next elections who reject the support of groups created by Citizens United, as my friend Elizabeth Warren did in Massachusetts—pledging with her opponent Scott Brown to refuse any outside money.
We can do this by pressing our national elected officials to pass legislation that updates our system of public financing, creates real disclosure laws, and replaces the FEC with a true enforcement agency. And we can do this by turning our backs on the consultants and insiders who continue to game Citizens United for cash.
Unless Democrats embrace election reform as a central tenet of our platform, we will face another era reminiscent of soft money—when the dominance of corporate interests meant that no matter which party held power, the influence of Big Money always won.
- 1
- 2
Sadly, the practice of gearing up for new elections preoccupies incumbents perhaps even more than challengers. Knowing you have a "term" lasting x months or years distracts a candidate and his/her staff in the same way a person who has a job but is looking for another is constantly distracted; the focus of his/her world innately becomes individual security first, then the job at hand. With an eye on securing the future, there is only haphazard attention to needs of the past or even present.
Term limits may not be as much of an answer as neutralizing party power tied to candidates during the actual voting process.
How about citizen petitions asking for referenda on eliminating straight ticket party-line voting options on ballots and instead demanding ballots only provide names/neutral records of each candidate (no party affiliation) in any election (much in the way issues are put on the ballot for referendum)? Taking the name of the party off the ballot and forcing people to then vote merely for the name of each candidate compromises if even in a small way the presence of the party vs the candidate on voting day (in the same way people cannot legally solicit voters for their candidates around the voting booths on election day).
How about local forum and nonpartisan debate sponsors no longer agreeing to candidate conditions/rules for debates or town hall meetings in negotiations, but dictating the terms and times of the debate/talk? Taking the upper hand in debate negotiations would signal to candidates and their staffs that they are the recipients, rather than the dictators, of the publics' goodwill. When did candidates get the power to court us--and not the other way around? It is we, the citizenry, who give them the benefit of our interest and time with each audience.
Along the same lines, how about a state law demanding that (much as closed door and backroom deals are no longer a staple of party politics) neutral, professional reporters have access to every fundraising meeting held by any candidate in the state? How about passing laws which demand this transparency and don't allow for the kind of closed-door sessions with special interests during the campaign cycle. Unlike perhaps, private meetings held by elected government officials on business which --perhaps--must be kept secret, there is no more reason for any candidate supporter to be courted privately than there is any reason names of all donors should not be published according to law. Supporters should be willing to be eyeballed at all times, and candidates should always be quoted. Closed door meetings should be made illegal on the campaign trail. If the elected officials themselves won't stoop to pass such laws, what prevents the citizenry from launching petitions demanding referenda decreeing such laws be put on local/statewide ballots?
How about 10-year redistricting be conducted along population rather than party lines according to (blind) borders and made the job of the Federal Census, to be then sent to states? If states insist on local control of this power, how about apportioning redistricting boundaries to a similar nonpartisan council where all party affiliations are equally represented in number? Again if officials won't allow such laws to pass, what stops the citizenry from mounting referendas that put such legal changes to majority vote?
In all these ways, if votes are the majority's currency in elections,we must learn to use the vehicles of this currency to enact change--ie: referendum when elected officials fail to act.
Sadly, the practice of gearing up for new elections preoccupies incumbents perhaps even more than challengers. Knowing you have a "term" lasting x months or years distracts a candidate and his/her staff in the same way a person who has a job but is looking for another is constantly distracted; the focus of his/her world innately becomes individual security first, then the job at hand. With an eye on securing the future, there is only haphazard attention to needs of the past or even present.
Term limits may not be as much of an answer as neutralizing party power tied to candidates during the actual voting process.
How about citizen petitions asking for referenda on eliminating straight ticket party-line voting options on ballots and instead demanding ballots only provide names/neutral records of each candidate (no party affiliation) in any election (much in the way issues are put on the ballot for referendum)? Taking the name of the party off the ballot and forcing people to then vote merely for the name of each candidate compromises if even in a small way the presence of the party vs the candidate on voting day (in the same way people cannot legally solicit voters for their candidates around the voting booths on election day).
How about local forum and nonpartisan debate sponsors no longer agreeing to candidate conditions/rules for debates or town hall meetings in negotiations, but dictating the terms and times of the debate/talk? Taking the upper hand in debate negotiations would signal to candidates and their staffs that they are the recipients, rather than the dictators, of the publics' goodwill. When did candidates get the power to court us--and not the other way around? It is we, the citizenry, who give them the benefit of our interest and time with each audience.
Along the same lines, how about a state law demanding that (much as closed door and backroom deals are no longer a staple of party politics) neutral, professional reporters have access to every fundraising meeting held by any candidate in the state? How about passing laws which demand this transparency and don't allow for the kind of closed-door sessions with special interests during the campaign cycle. Unlike perhaps, private meetings held by elected government officials on business which --perhaps--must be kept secret, there is no more reason for any candidate supporter to be courted privately than there is any reason names of all donors should not be published according to law. Supporters should be willing to be eyeballed at all times, and candidates should always be quoted. Closed door meetings should be made illegal on the campaign trail. If the elected officials themselves won't stoop to pass such laws, what prevents the citizenry from launching petitions demanding referenda decreeing such laws be put on local/statewide ballots?
How about 10-year redistricting be conducted along population rather than party lines according to (blind) borders and made the job of the Federal Census, to be then sent to states? If states insist on local control of this power, how about apportioning redistricting boundaries to a similar nonpartisan council where all party affiliations are equally represented in number? Again if officials won't allow such laws to pass, what stops the citizenry from mounting referendas that put such legal changes to majority vote?
In all these ways, if votes are the majority's currency in elections,we must learn to use the vehicles of this currency to enact change--ie: referendum when elected officials fail to act.
Good luck with that one.
I'm 57 seven years old, a life long Democrat.... and I bet I'm dead before we see any meaningful campaign finance reform.
Jan 12, 2013, 1:36 AMThis is to suggest a judicial judicial approach to get the money-givers out of politics: Namely, filing multiple lawsuits challenging the Santa Clara (corporate personhood) and Buckley ("money is speech") Supreme Court decisions, but stopping short of challenging Citizens United.
Chief Justice Roberts recently voted to preserve Obamneycare. Similarly, in ruling on the proposed lawsuits, one of the five conservative Justices may want to "pull a Roberts" and be recognized in history as a great American patriot for saving the nation from continuing to go down the tubes because of the legalized corruption and bribery of our elected leaders.
Recent polls indicate that about 80% of the citizenry are disgusted with the obscene amounts of money-in-politi cs, hence I infer that there will be widespread public support for these lawsuits as they wend their way to the Supreme Court for consolidation and resolution.
Assuming success in reversing those absurd, Orwellian decisions, the liberated dysfunctional Congress, no longer corrupted by money-in-politi cs, would be enabled to enact urgently needed legislation in the public interest. Such as to pave the way for public financing of elections, free airtime for congressional candidates, universal health care, raising essential revenue from those who can best afford to supply it, and exerting world leadership in preventing and mitigating global warming.
Jan 14, 2013, 1:43 AMI would limit the amount of money in the system by requiring all members of Congress to be in the Capitol working from Monday morning at 9 until Friday afternoon at 5 the entire time the Senate and House are in session.
Mar 1, 2013, 2:43 PMPassage of a proposed 11th Amendment Enabling Act could permit states to enact election integrity laws, avoiding the problem of American Tradition Partnership. Congress, accountable to a single issue voters movement could pass omnibus reform legislation protected by the exceptions clause. The issue is not simply election corruption, but the invasion of separation of powers by the Court. See the legal treatise at moneyouttapolitics.org.
Mar 21, 2013, 3:07 PMPost a Comment
Russ Feingold represented Wisconsin in the United States Senate from 1993 to 2011, and was the co-author of the campaign-finance reform law known as McCain-Feingold. He is also the founder of Progressives United.
Events
Democracy, Brennan Center Co-Host Money-in-Politics Event
On May 7, the Brennan Center for Justice, a New York City-based public policy institute, hosted a panel discussion co-sponsored by Democracy and Demos on money in politics, the subject of Democracy’s centerpiece symposium in the Winter 2013 issue.
News
Washington Post Interviews Kleiman on Crime Policy
In a March 28 post in The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, Dylan Matthews interviewed UCLA professor Mark Kleiman about his essay, “Smart on Crime,” in the current issue of Democracy.
News
Klein Cites Democracy Essay on Defense Spending
In his Bloomberg View column on February 13, Ezra Klein discussed the politics of military spending and highlighted a number of quotes from former Representative Barney Frank’s feature contribution to Democracy’s Winter 2013 issue.
