Citizens United not only ushered in a world of unlimited corporate money, but it also pretty much undermines all state-based anti-corruption legislation. We all know how the Supreme Court recently nullified Montana's election laws, but it also looks likely that West Virginia's election laws are also at stake... Recently they -- along with Arizona and North Carolina -- passed laws for public financing of judges. This was explicitly done so corporations can't just "purchase" judges, like coal companies were fond of doing. But recently, in all their wisdom, the Supreme Court declared all such programs unconstitutional because they don't allow unlimited corporate money.
So how do we fight unlimited corporate money? Simple: unlimited public money.
Wait, what???
You heard me... unlimited public money. But with a really sneaky twist...
This is based on an idea advanced by Matt Yglesias... ever since the Supreme Court oddly ruled that money is free speech, it's pretty much impossible to lower the ceiling of political money. So instead, raise the floor!
Instead of complex rules limiting money, instead have simple rules that grant money! The grant would have to be a sizable amount, allowing a candidate to run an entire campaign without doing any fundraising at all... but it will also need some kind of incentive to keep the costs down. I came up with an interesting system of incentives that does exactly this... and it can be passed on a state-by-state basis, even for Federal elections! Here's the basic process:
Step 1: add up all the political money spent the last election cycle in your state. How much did each Senate candidate spend in your state? Each Representative? Each President? Whatever they spent, add it all up! Also, add up all shadowy expenditures by any PAC, Super PAC, Corporation, and Unions in your state... have separate buckets for the Primary and General elections, of course.
Step 2: create a "Responsible Government Tax" to raise the identical amount. This is the tough part: nobody likes their taxes being raised... but they like crooked politicians even less. A persuasive politician in a blue-ish state could probably get away with it. Montana seems ripe for it.
Step 3: give all candidates an average of what was spent last time. This goes to all candidates, both State and Federal. Presidents, Senators, Congressmen, and Governors. Ironically, before Citizen's United, it would have been illegal for states to raise lump sums for national candidates! But now, each State can just make a Super PAC for each national candidate, and dump the money there. The candidate can appoint whoever they want to run their Super PAC, because ya know, there's definitely no coordination between Super PACs and candidates...
Step 4: continue to allow unlimited donations from corporation. We really have no choice here... Any "reform" law that tries to fight unlimited money is dead on arrival. The Supreme Court is just not going to change their minds. Ever. Short of a constitutional amendment, nothing can undo the damage that the "Citizens United" ruling did. We can't change it... but we can make it irrelevant.
Step 5: post election, determine the difference due to unlimited donations. If for no other reason than inflation, every election will be more expensive than the one before it. However, in some cases -- like now! -- something radical happens and tons of new money floods into the process. Any increase in political spending above inflation will be noted, and tied to the political party that overspent.
Step 6: if overall spending increased, raise and rename the tax to shame the money party. It's very likely that with PACs, Super PACs, and crazy billionaires, Republicans are going to outspend Democrats 2-to-1 in this election cycle. Imagine the outrage in a blue state if the tax went from being named the "Responsible Government Tax" to the "Subsidizing Republican Elections Tax." The tax is renamed to shame the party that overspent, and increased to ensure both candidates get the extra cash next year.
The the other radical idea here is that this legislation is actually pro-corporation.
It's a little known fact that corporate political donations lead to LOWER stock prices. At first this sounds crazy, but it's not surprising when you think about it. Companies don't want to donate money: they'd much rather use money to make more money. Political donations are, in fact, a cost center. Just like advertising. Big corporations live quarter-to-quarter: they don't want to write big checks to politicians that yield no immediate benefit... but if your competitors are writing big checks, then you have to as well.
If there's a floor to campaign financing, and big spenders are publicly shamed, then there's really no incentive for corporations to waste good money on politicians... so they won't, and their profits will actually increase. The same thing happened when cigarette companies were banned from TV advertising. The companies fought the legislation tooth-and-nail on First Amendment grounds... but after enacted their corporate profits actually went up.
Not to mention that it makes life much easier for politicians! Getting campaign donations is a tedious process. Most Congressmen spend most of their time begging people for money. But, if their state passed a law like this, they'd be free to spend 100% of their time actually building relationships and getting legislation passed. Which of course means that they have more time to push their state's agenda on the country... which in turn is good for the state.
So... it's pro-democracy, it's pro-corporation, and it's pro-politician. And this kind of campaign finance reform would not even be possible without Citizens United, so as a bonus its a big middle finger to the "Supreme" court.
Thoughts?