Campaign finance reform has come to the forefront of this year’s presidential campaign, perhaps appropriately so, when spending concerning the election may approach $10 billion.
The role of money in politics is an increasingly important issue to Americans, as a January Pew Research Center poll showed 42 percent of adults rate it as a top priority for the president and Congress, up from 28 percent in 2012. It is also an uncontroversial, non-partisan issue amongst voters. A CBS News poll reported by the New York Times found that 84 percent of Americans believe money has too much influence in political campaigns, 70 percent believe that the wealthy have more influence in elections, and 85 percent believe that the system needs fundamental changes or needs to be rebuilt completely. Republicans, as well as Democrats, believe that donations should be more transparent and more limited, especially those given through super PACs.
This election cycle, Democratic and Republican presidential candidates alike have weighed in on campaign finance reform, and some campaigns are being run fundamentally focused on the issue. However, almost no two candidates are the same in what they are doing and what they are saying with respect to campaign financing. Let’s take a closer look at the differences.
Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton outlined specific proposals she could act on if she became president. Among the proposals were an executive order for government contractors to disclose campaign contributions. Clinton’s proposals are a concrete way to advocate an idea she has supported for some time – in Clinton’s campaign announcement tour, she listed a constitutional amendment to Citizens United as one of her top four priorities. Listing specific actions is important, because it is one thing to pitch an idea and another to see it realized. By outlining specific actions, Clinton may seem to be one step closer to actually enacting change. One thing Obama can be criticized on is that while he openly opposed Citizens United and the role of money in politics, he didn’t do much to change it, forgoing the opportunity to issue executive orders on this issue.
What people don’t want is for issues to simply be political talking points. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, for instance, can seem similar to Clinton on the issue of campaign financing. He has openly stated that Citizens United needs to be fixed through a constitutional amendment, and he said he supported Mc-Cain-Feingold, which helped curb soft money in politics for a time, but has now been rendered less effective. The issue is that when Graham was confronted with a constitutional amendment to Citizens United in 2014, S.J. Res. 19, he voted against it.
In fact, Senate Republicans unanimously voted against the amendment in a 54-42 decision. The amendment, part of a larger effort known as the Democracy For All amendment, is written in very plain language and appears to be very reasonable. Barely over 100 words, the article in summary states: Through laws, money can be regulated in elections to limit its influence, the government can say companies are not people, and laws cannot change or hurt the freedom of the press. Really. That’s it. So Graham may in fact want an amendment overturning Citizens United, but it is bizarre that he would vote against this amendment that seems to do just that. The issue then, is that advocating an idea may just serve as a political talking point. There are some clear differences between Graham and Clinton, though – Clinton has outlined specific actions to overturn Citizens United, while Graham has overtly voted against an amendment that could do so. Just as they have differences though, they share one big similarity: they both use Super PACs, one of the tools that serves to influence politics through money.
Let’s take a moment to analyze exactly how money influences the process. Super PACs, in short, are a way for corporations and individuals to funnel unlimited campaign contributions to candidates, essentially going around the law of an individual’s campaign contribution limit of $2,600 per candidate. The idea is that in a democracy, every individual’s voice can be heard and every individual has the same influence over elections. Since Citizens United, individuals can spend billions in support of candidates by legally funneling it to Super PACs, corporations that can then buy T.V. time, newspaper and direct mail advertisements for candidates. Super PACs do have some legal limitations, since their ads can be easier to deny to broadcast and their ads are more expensive to buy than for a campaign, but mountains of cash can move mountains in the business world.
Super PACs are of course only one aspect of all the issues with campaign financing, and many decisions, even ones that are not as impactful as Citizens United have led us to this point. McCutcheon v. FEC, for example, removed aggregate limits for campaign contributions for multiple candidates and political action committees, though the limit to campaign contributions for individual candidates still stands. Reflecting on the time since and even prior to decisions like Citizens United, it should be evident that money is, unfortunately, increasingly important for winning elections - we can just take a look at our past three incumbents. In their third and fourth years of their last term, they have all increased their number of fundraisers. Bill Clinton held more than double the amount of fundraisers than his predecessor. George W. Bush held more than Clinton, and Obama held double those of Bush.
Understanding the power that money has on elections, are Clinton and Graham then hypocritical for advocating reform while using the corrupt tools themselves? If they were to taken Obama’s defense, they would say they are merely being forced to work within a broken system in order to then be able to fix it. But are Super PACs truly necessary? At least three candidates seem to think they are not.
Deomcractic candidate Lawrence Lessig announced his bid for the presidency last Wednesday, after his campaign raised $1 million without the aid of Super PACs. Lessig is truly dedicated to campaign finance reform – so much so, that the he is running as a self-described “referendum president.” If elected, Lessig aims to serve in the presidency only until he can reform campaign financing and eliminate gerrymandering. Once successful, he has vowed to then step down and let his vice-president lead.
Another Democratic candidate, Bernie Sanders, has also been vocal on overturning Citizens United and has been committed not to accept any money for Super Pacs. Sanders has mostly relied on small, individual donations for his campaign.
Then, there is billionaire Republican candidate Donald Trump who is financing his own campaign. While not delving into many specifics, Trump has also said the political campaign financing system is broken, and he has even admitted to participating in it by fundraising for previous candidates through Super PACs. He has also said the effects of money are influential, because campaign contributions, in one way or another, make candidates subservient to the donators.
Other candidates have also spoken about campaign financing, but perhaps not as strongly or not in the way that voters would hope. Republican senator Rand Paul and former governor Martin O’ Malley have both come out in general support of campaign finance reform. Senator Chris Christie has said he supports an unlimited contribution system with immediate online disclosure. Former CEO Carly Fiorina seems to also support more transparency.
The takeaway from all this should be that money has too much influence in politics; even candidates that have refused to use Super PACs will be spending literally millions of dollars on their campaigns. If we are to have a true democracy, we must find a candidate that will truly change money in politics and not just talk about it.
Sources: http://www.bloombergview.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://freespeechforpeople.org/...
http://blog.pfaw.org/...
https://www.congress.gov/...
https://www.youtube.com/...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.people-press.org/...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://www.publicintegrity.org/...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/...
http://www.theatlantic.com/...
http://www.politico.com/...
http://www.senate.gov/...
http://www.npr.org/...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/...
http://www.nbcnews.com/...