So corporations and unions now have unlimited spending on political advertisements? Some people are saying that this is the end of democracy as we know it.
I am sorry but Humpty Dumpty has already fell off this wall. To think that a mangled piece of legislation known as McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (or any of its predecessors) somehow fixed corporate and union influence is, to put it lightly, bullshit. If corporate and union influence has really killed democracy, it happened decades ago. I don’t think that’s reality though.
From the time they were conceived to present time, corporations and unions (and to a lesser extent, special interest groups) have been trying to sway the will of the people they influence the most using various methods. In the past, it may have been by force or intimidation. Other times it was with sweetening them up. Almost always, it involved money. Lots of it.
Fast forward to now. Wait, that is now.
Intimidation still happens. Sweetening still happens. And lots and lots of money is still happening. Don’t believe me?
From 2002 to 2006, the top 20 Republican backing companies spent around 70 million dollars on those three elections. Do you think that’s crazy? The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) alone spent around 60 million dollars trying to get President Obama elected in 2008.
What limits are we getting rid of exactly? The ability for a corporation to spend almost ten million dollars supporting candidates? The ability for a union to spend tens of millions of dollars on a single campaign? Give me a break. Whatever these campaign finance restrictions were doing, they certainly weren’t limiting the amount of money corporations and unions could use to support campaigns.
The true promise may not be restricting cash flow but certainly transparency is, right? Who is pushing the buttons behind the curtains is important too.
Political Action Committees (PACs) and 527 groups have made it difficult to trace the origins of donors and have allowed candidates to distance themselves from unpopular (but highly effective) negative advertising. They have generic names like Free and Strong America PAC (headed by Mitt Romney) and they can run ads like the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
Yeah, transparency. Like a steel door.
The real problem
You can do research for a couple hours on the internet and find out everything you wanted to know about how large corporations and unions contributed to political campaigns. There are many policy groups dissecting the information for you too. And considering that this Supreme Court decision doesn’t change the need for reporting results to the FEC, those same policy groups are going to be analyzing their contributions too.
So the money probably won’t change (because there have been no real limits). The transparency (for better or for worse) won’t change. What’s the problem?
Most people could care less. Somewhere around 50-55% of eligible voters end up voting on Presidential election years. In years where there is no Presidential race, that number drops below 40% (and in local only elections, it can be even more pathetic). And even among those who voted, it doesn’t mean they cared enough to research issues or follow the money. They allow everything from family influence, to workplace politics, to deep seeded disgust, to complete misunderstanding to take the place of rational examination. This is the fault of all of us as a society and individually when we don’t make the effort to do this. That’s the true problem.
What’s the solution?
That’s a tough one for me. For one, I am just naturally distrustful of large corporations, unions and politicians. Their ability to construct campaign finance reform in a way that would actually give a voice to people goes against their very nature of self-preservation. We can stop pretending that a knight in shining armor is going to ride up and write loophole free legislation that protects us from special interest impact on elections though. Similarly, we aren’t going to expect special interest groups to take the lead on this either. When the ACLU and Focus on the Family are on the same side of the issue (and that issue isn’t about preventing the killing of very cute kittens), you should be very afraid.
It ultimately comes down to the one thing that every single one of these corporations, unions and special interest groups can’t do:
Vote
Sounds like every stupid cliche political statement out there. Very Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. But voting is more than once every four years. It is voting local. It is voting in a party primary or caucus (if you are a part of a party). It is voting with your dollars, with your feet and with your pageviews. It is voting with your mouth and with your actions. It is about voting educated and informed.
None of those guys can touch you when you vote. None of them. And that’s what democracy is about.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Lance, have you been reading my stuff? I thought I was the only one under 40 who knew about Mr. Smith.
I’ve been thinking about this issue a lot lately… there are a few problems here:
1. The Supreme Court changed a century of law without a fundamental change in circumstance. (The GOP should be fuming about this “activist” decision, but they’re not. That alone is fishy.)
2. The decision allows for more and easier Swift Boat activism. And while lies are often punished, the damage they inflict is often permanent. (Enron’s policies caused Gray Davis to get recalled in CA… turns out, they were crooked and he was right. OOPS.)
3. It’s more than distrust of companies, it’s my distrust the selfish individuals who will forget what’s at stake and not be careful that has me worried: think of how loosely marketing depts sometimes play with facts to support a product, and now unleash them on our political system.
4. The 1st amendment was not written to protect commercial speech, it was written to protect political speech. What we have now is a situation where the former is masked as the latter. That’s insidious and corrosive.
The solution is more than “vote.” The solution is a return of the “neighborhood” concept… less time relaxing, more time working with others on what’s important; more time speaking up, trading ideas, and getting smart about important issues.
The voting process is more than casting a ballot. Voting is an ongoing obligation we all share as members of a free society. And the only reason this $ issue has become a problem is because we’ve let it be known that we are lazy and rather than make up our own minds, we are willing to do whatever someone tells us to do via our TVs.
Great thoughts Jason.
I’ll let you know that when I see the figures above and examined the way corporations and unions were spending on elections, I have to ask exactly what protections were in place to begin with? It seems that much of it had to do with accounting and less to do with truly restricting spending.
What if we could restrict campaign dollars to individuals only donating to other individual’s campaigns? I mean, I’d love that. Is that going to happen though? Were we anywhere close to that in our last system?
That’s why I think Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall a while back. Meaningful reform done by the very people with a significant stake in the game won’t happen. That’s why corporations could still spend millions of dollars on a single campaign. That’s why unions and special interest groups could do the same. And every single one of those dollars that they spend is one less a politician has to find.
I agree with your solution generally though. Voting is more than a singular activity. It is about being aware of how your decisions impact the world. And obviously money is going to continue to be a part of that.
While I hate the notion that large pools of money could distort/sway an election, I can’t help but believe that attempts to restrain free political speech are inherently unconstitutional. I get that a corporation isn’t a person, but neither is a union (and, trust me, union members don’t lock-step support the positions their leaders back any more than individuals who work for corporations do theirs). George Soros (or Steve Forbes) are individuals, but individuals with so much money that they can surely influence election advertising, if not elections. Moreover the plethora of 527 groups that sprung up in the wake of McCain-Feingold proves that this kind of stuff finds a way to happen no matter what (more cynically, as Senator Mitch McConnell reminded folks this week, there are no such limits imposed on the kind of politicing that passes for news coverage these days).
Ultimately, the answer is to do as you suggest Lance – vote! Vote every time you have a chance, and yes – vote local. The real cronies – and the ones who have a hugely direct impact on your life are the ones closest to you. They count on you not voting, and not caring.
Surprise them! Go to “town hall” meetings, write – or better yet, call – your representatives. Do what the voters of Massachusetts did this past week – nothing shakes things up like reminding them that these positions are leased, not bought, and certainly not “owned”. You CAN make a difference!
A good look at a tough problem. I talked with a friend from the Netherlands today who told me all campaigns there are funded by public money. Wonder if that would work here?
Lance,
Your post inspired me to write a post of my own. Great topic.
I think the solution has a lot to do with finding politicians willing to fall on their own sword for the good of the whole. I think that’s what it will take. Power is the currency of politics and money is a means to acquire political capital. Those who have power to effect change give up that power if they cut off the money. So they have to be willing to change the system and give up their power as a result.
Look for politicians willing to self-inflict a politically fatal wound.