I have watched with growing despair money slowly but systematically destroy our democracy.
I joined Common Cause when I was in my early twenties and I'm nearly sixty now.
Over the years, things have simply gotten worse and worse. I have read countless stories of Congressmen and Senators rushing to phone banks and fund raising parties at the end of practically every working day.
Some of this money comes from ordinary people, such as you and me, through various interest groups we may send money to, but much of it comes from corporations and very wealthy people. They are the ones who can best afford to make these “donations”. And make them they do. To stay in office, your average Representative or Senator has to accept this money. If they don't, their opponents surly will.
Is it any wonder that the last two Democratic presidents (Clinton and Obama) would have been considered fine mainline Republicans, in the days of my youth?
Now we have the Citizen's United decision, which allows the the corporations and the wealthy to dump semi-trucks full of cash into the system. This is probably the biggest reason why the TPP will probably ultimately pass. It will squeak through, just barely, but it will pass.
I'm really afraid that, if the Republicans do very well next year, it will be seen as proof that our democracy is fundamentally dead. It will be dead for me. It will be dead in the eyes of most of the rest of the world. And it will most certainly be dead for most voters. It may not be too big of an exaggeration to say it could well be the last election, or maybe two or three presidential election cycles from the last.
Even if the Democrats win, we can expect a further erosion of New Deal programs, woman's reproductive rights, and corporate regulation. This is because, for most Congressmen and Senators, you can't win if you don't play. If you don't accept the corporate donations, you can forget about winning your next election. Whatever lies you tell your constituents; whatever lies you tell yourself even, do not change this fact. You may come in with the best of intentions, but you will quickly learn to “Lean toward the green”.
Any notion that even a large Democratic win in that election proves that big money can be beat, will most likely prove to be a sad delusion. Even so, it may buy us some time to save our democracy.
The campaign financing system absolutely needs to be overhauled. If this is not done, we can all forget about any lasting progressive gains in this country.
But what would such an overhaul look like? How will it survive a Supreme Court challenge?
I think I have come up with a proposal which can pass this test. It can go a long way toward leveling the playing field, while not violating the “money is free speech” doctrine, which the present SCOTUS supports and is likely to support for the foreseeable future.
If you have read this far and am still interested, my proposal is beneath the squiggle.
PROPOSED 60/40 CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW
This is a potential remedy to the now infamous “Citizens United” decision by the United States Supreme Court.
It should pass any violation of free speech test.
Here's how it would work:
General Principle
Is to insure that no side, of any political debate, or contest for public office, can overwhelm its opposition with much greater resources.
General Concept
Is to impose a 40% tax on all political campaign contributions, which will then be distributed to the most likely opponents. This is to insure a reasonable amount of debate by giving a much weaker opponent the means to stay in the debate.
Methodology
If I make a contribution of say $100 to the Green Party, the FEC will then collect $40 dollars from that amount and distribute it as follows:
5% ($ 2.00) will go to what I call C Class political parties. These are parties that were on the national ballot during the preceding election cycle, but did not hold any federal office at that time.
10% ($ 4.00) will go to what I call B Class political parties. These are parties that have appeared on the national ballot and have held at least one seat in the federal government. An example of this would be the Independent Party.
85% ($ 34.00) will got to what I call A Class parties. These are parties who have appeared on the national ballot, during the preceding election, have held at least one seat in the federal government, and have won the Presidency of the United States of America at least once in the preceding twenty years. I'm not going to name any examples here. They know who they are.
The money collected will first be divided up amongst the party classes, then divided up amongst the parties in each class evenly, except for the A class Parties. In this case the money will be divided up as follows: The party, amongst them, which raised the most money, would have its amount divided by that of the party that raised the second most. The number of other A class parties will be added to this number and the total purse will be divided by this sum. The product will be subtracted from the purse and given to the party which raised the most money. The other parties will split the balance.
For example: suppose there is a total of 500 million for a given party class. Now suppose one party was taxed 200 Million and the other was taxed 388 million. We divide 388 by 200 to get 1.94. We then add 1 to to that to get 2.94. We then divide the 500 million party class purse by 2.94 to get 170 million. This amount goes to the party, of the two, which raised the most money. This same amount is subtracted from the 500 million purse to get 330 Million. This will go to the other party.
If there are no class B parties, the Class B party purse will go to the Class C parties. If there are no Class C parties, the Class C party purse will go to the Class B parties. Only if there are no Class B or Class C parties will all the purses be given to the Class A parties.
This system could be first used for presidential elections, then spread to Congressional and Senate elections.
I think the Supreme Court would have a very difficult time claiming that this would be an abridgment of free speech, as the amount any party or contributor could raise would be unlimited under this proposed system.
To check out the implications of this proposed system, I created a spreadsheet. On this spreadsheet I created seven political parties. The top two were, of course, the Democratic and Republican parties. These were listed as Class A parties.
Next, down from them, was the Independent party, which was the only Class B party.
Below them were the Class C parties, which were: the Green, Libertarian, Family Values, and Socialist parties.
Next, I imagined each getting their campaign contributions in a presidential election year. I intentionally made things very lopsided, as the 2016 presidential election is likely to be.
This was to be a very bad year for the Democrats. Below, in millions of dollars, are the amounts I assigned to each party:
Class A
Democratic 120
Republican 1200
Class B
Independent 2
Class C
Green 0.2
Libertarian 0.6
FamilyValues 0.5
Socialist 0.1
So, amongst all three classes of parties, a total of 1323 million dollars was raised.
Now, supposing my proposed system is in place then, lets see what will happen. First all the parties must pay their 40% tax. This leaves them with:
Class A
Democratic 72
Republican 720
Class C
Independent 1.2
Class C
Green 0.12
Libertarian 0.36
FamilyValues 0.30
Socialist 0.06
A total of 529 million was collected from this tax. Now, starting with the Class C parties, lets divide the money.
The class C parties collectively get 5%. So, 5% of 529 million is about 26.5 million, which will be divided equally amongst them.
Class B parties get 10%, which is 52.9 million. And since there is only one party in this class, the Libertarian party, it gets all the money in this purse.
Now we come to the Class A parties, whom collectively get 450 million (85% of 529 million). This is where the math gets a bit complicated. Here, the fact that the Republicans raised ten times as much as the Democrats, gets taken into account. The first thing we do is divide what the Republicans got by what the Democrats got: 720/72 which comes to 10. Next we add to that the number of Class A parties, minus one, or: 10+(2-1), which comes to 11. Next, we divide the total Class A party purse by that number: 450/11, which comes to about 41 million. This is what the Republicans get back. The Democrats, being the only other Class A party, get the rest: 450-41, or 409 million. So now it's just a month before the election and all the money has been divided. So let's see how much each party has now.
Class A
Democratic 72 + 409, or 481 million
Republican 720 + 41, or 760 million
Class B
Independent 1.2 + 52.9 or 54.1 million
Class C
Green 0.12 + 6.63, or 6.75 million
Libertarian 0.36 + 6.63, or 6.99 million
FamilyValues 0.30 + 6.62, or 6.92 million
Socialist 0.06 + 6.62, or 6.68 million
As you can see, though the Republicans still have a lot more money than the Democrats, things are a lot less lop sided. Not only that, but the Class B and C parties have a lot more cash than they started out with. This puts them all in a much better position to improve their ranks. Some of this money might be spent in the election, but some could be used to build the party up for the next one.
And in my next scenario, this is exactly what happens. The 2016 election ends up being quite a shocker. Almost unbelievably, a Democratic candidate, who loses in the primary, bolts from the party and runs as an Independent. Even more shocking, she wins the election!
But she only wins by plurality.
So, to prevent a constitutional crises, the first run off election in US history is held. She wins that too.
The 2020 presidential election finally rolls around.
Now, suppose each party raised exactly the same amount of money as last time, let's start from the bottom and see how much each party ends up with for this next election. There have been some changes in rank
Class C
Green 0.12 + 8.82, or 8.94 million
FamilyValues 0.30 + 8.82, or 9.12 million
Socialist 0.06 + 8.82, or 8.88 million
Class B
Libertarian 0.6 + 52.9, or 53.5 million
Class A
Democratic 72 + 208, or 280 million
Republican 720 + 35, or 755 million
Independent 1.2 + 208, or 209 million
As you can see, the Democrats are in a much worse position than they were in '16, even after this reform. But nowhere near as bad off as they would have been without it. And that's assuming all the parties raise the same amount of money they raised the last time. Viewing the results of the '16 elections, that's probably not going to be the case. The wealthy interests, who invested heavily in the Republican party, hoping to buy the election, woke up Wednesday morning to a grim surprise. A month later they got another shocker. Their party was shut out of the runoff. They also woke up to discover Libertarians sharing their party's side of the isle in congress.
Now, as they plan for the '20 election, they face a vexing dilemma. Do they continue to pour money into the now sinking Republican party? Or do they invest in the Libertarian one? Even if they invest heavily in the Libertarian party this does not change the rank of that party. It will still get only 60% of what they put in it plus only about 10% of the 40% of that, that gets taxed away. And 85% of that will be split between the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Independents.
Even worse, there is a rumor that the Socialist party is planning on spending almost all their money on just one congressional seat. If they win, they will become a new Class B party. The word is that the FamilyValues party is planning to do the same.
Early in 2020, one billionaire was overheard privately saying “Damn, we don't know who to bribe anymore.” And another one publicly said: “I wish I had never heard of f***ing Citizens United.”