In 1830 Daniel Webster stood before the Senate of the United States and described the Federal government thus:
“...made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people"
He spoke further:
"This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties."
His words foreshadowed those spoken by President Abraham Lincoln more than 30 years later when he concluded his remarks at Gettysburg by declaring:
“...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Sadly, both Webster and Lincoln have been proved wrong. Government by the people, by the people, and for the people has perished. It no longer exists. It has expired as surely as did those thousands who fought and died in the peach orchard, the devil's den, and the farm field beneath Picket's charge and thereafter populated the cemetery the Lincoln was asked to dedicate.
Today the Federal Government can be best described as being “...of the rich, by the money, and for the corporations and political parties.” Think not? Let's look further.
The average net worth of an ordinary citizen was $68.828 in 2011. In 2014 the majority of the members of Congress are millionaires, with the median net worth for all House members at $896,000 and the median net worth for Senators at $2,700,00. Members of Congress, with few exceptions, are in the top one percent for income.
Government is of the rich!
In 1986 the average House campaign cost $360,000. By 2012 that had risen to $1,600,000, a more than four-fold increase. But House races are cheap compared to the Senate, where the average in 1986 was $6,400,000. In 2012 it was up to $10,400,00, not quite double. Although the figures for 2014 are currently incomplete, there is ample evidence that the races have grown even more expensive, largely because the influx of unregulated money provided under the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court.
Government is by the money!
So, what do we, the American people, get for all this money? The answer, in simple terms, is Zip! Since these folks in Congress aren’t like us, and rely on money from special interests, they just don’t much care about our problems, at least partly because they really can’t relate to us in any meaningful way.
In 1992 then President George H W Bush, running for re-election, was amazed to discover the concept of a supermarket scanner, a machine that was introduced in 1976 and had been in common usage for more than ten years. He’d never seen one.
In 2007 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani was asked the price of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. He replied "A gallon of milk is probably about a $1.50, a loaf of bread about a $1.25, $1.30.” Whoops! In New York City at that time milk was $4.19 and a loaf of white bread was $2.99 to $3.39 at a typical New York supermarket.
These folks know nothing of the lives that most of us live. To put it in the terms of one of Mitt Romney’s supporters, we’re “nail ladies.”
There is a movement afoot right now to repeal the effects of the Citizens United ruling. That’s a great idea, but it’s not the problem. Fixing Citizens United is like putting a cast on a broken leg while ignoring the fact that the patient has a punctured lung and is bleeding out internally. Yes, it will help the leg but it won’t do much of anything to make the patient better in the long run.
In order to solve this problem, a more comprehensive approach is needed. We probably do need a Constitutional amendment, but it needs to be worded differently. This is what we should be considering.
A candidate for Federal Office shall only accept campaign donations from persons eligible to vote for that office, and all such donations shall first be considered taxable income for the donor. No individual or organization may campaign for or against a candidate for a Federal office, or for or against a state-wide issue using donations not received from citizens eligible to vote for that office or issue. Congress may establish limitations on donations for Federal Offices.
Now, let’s take that apart and see what it actually does.
A candidate for Federal Office shall only accept campaign donations from persons eligible to vote for that office…
If you’re running for office in the First District in Ohio you’re applying for a job to represent the citizens of the First District of Ohio. That is the job. So, why should your campaign be paid for by money from New York or Colorado? You’re not expected to represent New York, nor should you. You are to represent the people who elect you…that’s the core design of a representative democracy. So only the people you represent can fund your campaign.
Notice it doesn’t say you must be a registered voter, it simply says you must be eligible to vote for the office. If you’re not registered, that’s fine. If you don’t vote, that’s fine. The person elected should be representing you regardless. Since corporations and unions can’t vote, they can’t make contributions. You are expected to represent THE PEOPLE, not various organizations. If you’re doing the right thing for the people, you’re likely doing the right thing for organizations too.
…and all such donations shall first be considered taxable income for the donor.
What this means is simple. Outside interests can’t funnel money to a campaign through an individual who lives in the district. So…if XYZ corporation wants to send money to Candidate A, they can’t give the money to Joe to contribute. If they do Joe will be obligated to pay taxes on the money as if it was income. I doubt real seriously that Joe wants to be on the hook for taxes on money he never gets to use himself. If he has to declare the income, he’s pretty unlikely to want to get into the “straw-man” business.
No individual or organization may campaign for or against a candidate for a Federal office, or for or against a state-wide issue using donations not received from citizens eligible to vote for that office or issue.
This does two things.
First, it prevents another way outside money is used to influence or buy an election. It simply says that organizations can campaign for or against things, but they must be able to show that all the money they raise and spend comes from people eligible to vote on the measure or office. You want to form a PAC to support your favorite Senator? Great. Go right ahead. However, all the money you raise must come from people who live in the state that the Senator represents, and since corporations aren’t eligible to vote, it doesn’t much matter if the court thinks they are “people.”
Second, it creates the same restrictions for state-wide measures. Why should money from New York be spent to convince Oregonians that they shouldn’t regulate food packaging so GMO products are identified. It’s an Oregon issue, and it should be decided by Oregonians.
There may be some backlash against this element, but I’m pretty certain the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to regulate interstate commerce, and that’s exactly what this is: the idea that interests in another state can buy an election in Oregon. The reality is that most of the significant measures are funded by interests elsewhere.
Take a look at where the money came from to support California’s anti-marriage equality measure that passed but was later overruled by the Supreme Court. HINT: It wasn’t from Californians.
Take a look at the spending reports for Oregon’s recent measure to require the labeling of GMO foods. The bulk of the money to defeat that measure came from…yup, out of state. Why should somebody in New Jersey tell folks in Florida how to run their state?
Congress may establish limitations on donations for Federal Offices.
This last sentence simply makes it clear that Congress has the implicit power to regulate and limit contributions to a campaign. That means that people of means cannot buy an election simply because they are rich. It also allows regulation of candidates spending their own money to purchase a position. This would also apply to aggregate donations, meaning that a person cannot donate to the candidate limit and then donate unlimited amounts to a PAC.
I should explain that getting this passed by Congress will be nearly impossible. None of those rich folks are going to willingly accept limitations that mean they can’t spend millions, and they certainly aren’t going to like the idea that they should be accountable to those who elect them, but think back to those statements by Webster and Lincoln.
Unless we make a change, government of, by and for the people is doomed, and the death knell is ringing as you’re reading this.