An earlier version of this diary was posted at Notes on a Theory.
A common refrain is that until the problem of money in politics is dealt with, we can’t achieve anything. Often, the focus is on Citizens United, and the necessity of a constitutional amendment to overturn it. The difficulty here should be obvious – enacting a constitutional amendment is exceedingly difficult, it would require gaining support from plenty of red states in addition to the blue and purple ones, it would require a set of strategies different from those common in campaigns now (i.e. ad driven, because why would big money donors support it), etc. How could this be achieved in a system that is broken? Obviously, one needs a way to improve the situation that can operate within the existing system, or there is no way out. By focusing on a constitutional amendment (without offering a path to get there), we offer people two choices – fatalism, or magic thinking. Neither view is very useful.
It strikes me the key is to 1) find strategies that rely less on big money, preferably by harnessing the energy of the large majorities of Americans who oppose Citizens United and are concerned about corruption in politics and 2) finding reachable, intermediate goals that could create a path to major change but wouldn’t require it in order to be achieved. That is, we need to think not just about winning but about expanding the boundaries of the possible.
In terms of strategies, face-to-face interaction is more powerful than advertisements both in getting people to vote and in engaging them to act. Another way of putting this is the way to get money out of politics is to get people into politics. This would require building a permanent organizing infrastructure (that is, one that is not created and dismantled around individual campaigns). It would mean relying on volunteers over paid staff. And it will require choosing frames that inspire excitement and support rather than those that poll well with independents. This sort of organizing can’t be limited to elections–when people mobilize to elect candidates and then demobilize when those candidates take office, the policy that results will be a disappointment, as corporate interests and conservatives will continue to fight. It has to include battles over policy and organizing in the workplace as well. For what it's worth, the most successful examples of this have either been unions or efforts led by veterans on unions. I'm quite convinced that is not coincidental - unions may be the only institution yet developed capable of effectively pushing back against the power of big money.
What about the intermediate steps? Well, first corporations can be pressured directly to disclose their spending, and shareholders can pressure corporations not to use their money to advance political causes. (On the latter, remember the recent efforts to pressure corporations to stop supporting ALEC). The rules governing corporations could be changed to require them to get shareholder support in order to engage in electioneering or lobbying. I'd also suggest that this sort of advocacy should be coupled with efforts to bar corporations from coercing their employees with regard to the vote, political activities or union activities, which are another unwelcome product of CU.
Public funding could be instituted at the state level. As long as they don’t include a trigger where candidates get more spending when they are being outspent the Supreme Court is unlikely to strike it down, and it’s not clear that these triggers are necessary. This is because the impact of money is diminished when the opponent also is able to get her message out and because our concern isn't just with election outcomes but also with what sorts of ideas can get a hearing. And as an organizing infrastructure is created, it can be used to support candidates who in turn could be pressured not to use media strategies that require large donors.
None of this would be easy, but all of it is easier than a constitutional amendment. Regardless, any approach has to operate within the system.
[1]I’m not convinced that Citizens United is the problem. The system was fairly broken before that decision. There’s little doubt that in the wake of the decision the amounts of campaign cash skyrocketed. But simply returning to the pre-Citizens United rules would be no solution, and neither would placing spending limits on corporations alone.
[2]I’m leaving aside the question of disclosure, because I fail to see how 1) it’s possible using existing strategies or 2) why it would matter much. I knew a number of people who worked in the business campaign finance sector in the late 90s. Back then, any conversation about campaign finance ended with their suggestion that the solution was full disclosure. I don’t think it was because they wanted to limit the power of business.
[3]None of this is to suggest that an amendment shouldn't be part of the agenda, although many of the ones I've seen discussed seem to me to be misguided. Nor is it to suggest that organizing shouldn't highlight Citizens United itself. But the story that says CU caused the problem and that an amendment is the only solution is both not true and bad politics.