While researching money in politics recently, I came across the name Cecilia Tkaczyk.
Her Senate race in New York struck me as particularly interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, because she won despite running in a district gerrymandered in favor of her Republican opponent. Second, because public financing of elections was the main issue she campaigned on.
This could be a game-changing issue for the Democratic party.
Stats and strategy below the fold.
A Few Quick Statistics
- 82 percent of voters believe Congress should limit the amount of money corporations can spent on elections (Hart Poll, Jan 2011)
- 77% of voters feel that corporations have an advantage
over average citizens (Hart Poll, Jan 2011)
- A state of New York pollfound that 97 percent say it’s important for state leaders to address “reducing the influence of money in politics and ending corruption” including 50 percent who say it’s extremely important.
- Half of Americans would support a completely liberal plan in which government entirely funds federal campaigns. (Gallup, June 2013)
Simply by choosing this fight as a defining issue has the potential to put an opponent on the defensive. How much money each candidate raises will be front and center. If your opponent out raises you, it might actually hurt them.
Past Efforts at Defining a Cause
There have been many previous efforts under the umbrella of Campaign Finance Reform and a movement to Repeal Citizens' United.
While both of these are desirable goals, they're not causes people can easily understand and get behind.
Campaign Finance Reform fails as a cause because it's not something people can get excited about or morally believe in. What does it mean? Are we changing some obscure rules of political campaigning?
As far as repealing Citizens' United, majorities overwhelmingly support the effort once they understand the Citizens' United decision. The bad news is that in a recent Hart poll only 22% of people had even heard about the Citizens' United decision.
So while I don't disagree with either of these approaches, the call to arms issue should be something people can easily understand and overwhelmingly support: taking the money out of politics.
Campaign Finance Reform and repealing Citizens' United are just a couple of ways of accomplishing this goal.
Instead of leading with the 'how', we should be leading with the cause: taking the money out of politics.
Stand for Something
As I wrote for the Washington Spectator, taking the money out of politics is a brand defining fight.
Remember how Republicans defined themselves with lower taxes? This has the potential to be that kind of brand defining issue. What if Democrats stood for ‘taking the money out of politics’?
Little to Lose
You may have heard the saying ‘money wins elections’ and you may have even observed cases where it was true.
After all, it certainly seems like the politicians who manage to raise the most funds do well. There's a lot to be said for this, but when it comes to out raising opponents, I’d argue the following:
- We’re fighting a battle on conservative turf
- We compromise progressive ideals in the process
- Nos. 1 and 2 mean we have little to lose because if Democrats win by out raising opponents, they often lose because they end up compromising progressive values
I know what progressives stand for, but I'd like to see Democrats stand for something other than not being Republicans.
Taking the money out of politics is a good place to start. Cecilia Tkaczyk demonstrates that it can be done.
It's a shame that two Democrats in New York, instead of picking this up as a cause, blocked it's passage in the New York State Senate.
If taking money out of politics was the Democratic brand and we held Democrats accountable to this standard, maybe things would change.
Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick, in a recent column in Slate, wrote that progressives have abandoned every cause save gay marriage. This is ridiculous. Progressives haven't abandoned their principles.
However, I'm afraid until we can take the money out of politics, the same can not be said about Democrats.